Skip to main content

Full text of "Commentaries on the book of the Prophet Daniel;"

See other formats 


ety is yf inns ada vq ategerrgrane Aca 
aN SE -% | 5 ay a ra waits ; iM on Abeta Nest ses 
wt Tpeye ie oe FQ ELUENT AE Pe ae eit eee ‘ hd p aye M1 4 ft iY 
ehor sy ate ba a f an elerd Pee 248 : 
obey i . me 
4 ee 


saly? ae 


= ~~ 
3 wae ae 


wa eee 





Ok x Vth t 
ie uo bh Ms patel: rae 
2 eV? 
a <i! 


Hy 
2 tte Cary sta 
oe Ba HCE eR Yay 
yet 4. z APOE SD te ¥: Sie 
cet net be ee ay ae RPA Argeb 
mee be 
‘ 





-, 


ie fits deh vibe pee we 
3 rf: “ae espe en ostaad ST dad ae 
f nits ror rer ; 32 vee! te) 9452 adn tenis frase rar ote 7 
Py aon atit mictea. datas nabs mie TN Aa ldeeents day 6 
a Lees a ¥ bagi ‘ werd". ile tune teat danse avr tenet sghaic hy 6 pabariened ne 
FW ta wr Vea EE TE A dea eat yn ore fone eae a my Reacdurtetet 5 Fees = i ay dics wl Hy De be aie’ 
SOM te a Ye Dae NS Ve day ris sya tel Aga te 
Fem Aedes ’ wast . Be ats pipet byteret ois 
14s pepe pissin Ten S: 
2e » 


“f se é eee Gn $e Mine La dend 
qq ‘ vote be te prtocrrmernit >: pert ytnn 4 £3 
419 ty cveir th, oy " eae it wives Bee? 
dace oy 


pS 





ter 
TSA one 


ae 
BAA hee or) he Reng 
they Warcabesatekes ate. hs 4] 
Tu ee Lak 
4 Shae with suires setttiee 
* Sekar Era 





a atin. ete Be bok 
ate ge Uae eed 


ee 
see ates: 2 ok 
. Ae ce 


: eas 


Sees 


Aan 
jo potee presahia tent Petree 
¢ FAA =e one y= = ee 
¢ ante roe: 
ched 4 ergs ed dner phate 
. 
Fatal erste pa cincady Sopp 
faaed oaetad 


We 


+ er ae yt Pf 
deren yee ten 4 ger reales kaeepies. 
eatnreskgaldigeak eree* re any toe ae 
(Apacs ae 
gis pteen! Artege Shoe iaeceokotertistenie \eateeee heres 
srt 
i et ee pid op Gans bb: 
ne aye oid web cciye cum tae 
pei Leet, we leroery Gj ees 49 
ee Seda Sit eet oer in os ierer 
yea Fat hal 4 tao Poh FS ap Ot et each bel Bg Sin , 
ret w pee stearesesey« Bertin ee Prete: re rdw ahr 
ote seed yas rete 1s 7 
hee pigs det 60 52 had 
| 











o* Pt 
pee tr eh Fe acat ys 
ai¢ cee os 
ezhe: te ena 
ove—ete 








eran At siaqate: 

INTO Feat be Mare a ged 
pee etoe pas u ieee nti fe acast 

Baptag det pede Bay (s 

CUR Thy 4 a= tate, ea 


¥ , Pr oe, Gite 
‘ a fs ’ 
ga: * fisse seh ah 
} wor i mabe iy ‘ ey um ES iaaey saat ge 
Baers Sie ron pealppe det is he A 
qc a a 
* Ltr 











Aa wed Seuagte rte , ' Pmt ee 
cage Hie a ah 


yee ese reeneab 
Ate (forvven ars b ve ft Brerats * ae tag wong 
ane et tis a oi _ 9 sonh eiaer 4 
eb at Petasoan 
: } ay 2 sieht yp Se bet vl es 
pais aya bes rs rete 7 ee iy bret ieee 
F 3 bye alice: rey) hie atin 
ais cam Weed sane sie 
yal ae Pos eat -% a pet ten 2) ae 
é a 5 fe a ep cgere eye yar Dedsbes 
ee a Pr tret eh - ; ' py yeh Bienes) dears EAL c bE thon 
4 * ‘ a 
st AP oe 
<s 


ay 
rang 


wie hyd HAY He 3 
ete ce jit ae cay je 


: ae ot ; ; sarap tee tenis ; 

hs a SUE tice brick bot atte fect 
ie oR 3 Peelers ? ; eras 
3 id 


ts ‘ 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
In 2007 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/commentariesonda01 calvuoit 











, ~# 
_ 
~ eS f ty 
3 4 
= aa 
c eu 
neat 











OPHET DANIEL, 


VOL. I. 





t 
r 
; 
; 
be 


0 NOE tt mw 


THE CALVIN TRANSLATION SOCIETY. 


INSTITUTED IN MAY M.DCCC.XLIII. 





FOR PUBLICATION OF TRANSLATIONS OF THE WORKS OF JOHN CAL 


ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION, ONE POUND, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE ON 1st JANUARY. 
FOUR VOLUMES: CIRCULATED IN TWO HALF-YEARLY ISSUES. 


Acting and Editorial Seevetary, Robert Piteairn, F.S.A, Seot. 
Calvin Office, 9, Porthumberland Street, Coinburgh. 


ee * , , 
. ai f p g 


ON THE 







00K OF THE PROPHET DANIEL. 
BY JOHN ‘CALVIN! 


W FIRST TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, AND COLLATED 
WITH THE FRENCH VERSION, WITH DISSERTATIONS, NEW 
«TRANSLATION OF THE TEXT, AND COPIOUS INDICES, 
a 


BY THOMAS MYERS, MA, 


VICAR OF SHERIFF-HUTTON, YORKSHIRE, 


ave 


— 


VOLUME FIRST. 





EDINBURGH: 


TED FOR THE CALVIN TRANSLATION SOCIETY. 


, 4 
M.DCCC.LII. 


ey hk TY: . 
ey <«? J m > | 
: <A j 

\ \ 

iY’ 
‘ he ry 

iy = 
7 4 \' any 
: » 
. ‘ 











TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 





















a Propuecizs or Daven are among the most remarkable 
re dictions of raz Exper Covenant. They are not confined 
lin either a limited time or a contracted space. They 
late to the destinies of mighty Empires, and stretch for- 
ard into eras still hidden in the bosom of the future. The 
Bic d of their delivery was a remarkable one in the history 
Four race. The Assyrian hero had long ago swept away 
e Ten Tribes from the land of their fathers, and he in his 
mm had bowed his head in death, leaving magnificent me- 
rials of his greatness in colossal palaces and gigantic 
ulptures. The Son of the renowned Sarpanapatus, the 
or shipper of Assarac and Bettis, had already inscribed his 
> and exploits on those swarthy obelisks and enormous 
Ils which have lately risen from the grave of centuries. 
he glory of Ninrven had passed away, to be restored again 
hese our days by the marvellous excavations at Koyunstk, 
IRSABAD, and Nimrovp. Another capital had arisen on 
= of the Euphrates, destined to surpass the ancient 
iendour of its ruined predecessor on the banks of the Tigris. 
Ne Ese of the eagle-headed Nisrocu—a mighty 
r of the Chaldean hordes—had arisen, and gathering his 
nies from their mountain homes, had made the salweed 
els of Nineven a desert, had marched southwards 
, the reigning Puaraou of Egypt—had encountered 
: an a CarciEMisH—hurried on to tHe Horny Ciry, and 
- « away with him to his favourite capital the rebellious 


vi TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


people of the Lord. Among them was a captive of no ordi- 
nary note. He was at that time a child, yet he lived to see 
this descendant of the hardy Chasdim grow great in power 
and fame—to hear the tale of the fall of Tyrz, and “the 
daughter of the Zrpoytans,” and of the triumph over PHa- 
rAoH Hopura, whom modern researches have discovered in 
the twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt’s kings. At length the 
haughty conqueror returns, and dreams mysteriously. This 
forgotten prisoner becomes the only interpreter of wondrous 
visions of Empires about to arise and spread over distant 
centuries. The dreamer is at length gathered to his fathers: 
yet the interpreter lives on through the reign of the grand- 
son, and explains a mysterious writing on the palace wall, 
amidst revelry which ends in the city’s overthrow. Cyrus 
and his Persians, Darrius and his Medes rise rapidly to power, 
and the Prophet rises with them—till envy throws the aged 
Seer into a lion’s den. But he perishes not till he has seen 
visions of the future history of mankind. The triumphs of 
Persta and Macepon are revealed—the division of ALEX- 
ANDER’s Empire—the wars of his successors—the wide-spread 
dominion of Romze—the overthrow of the Sacred Sanctuary by 
Trrus—and THE Com1ne or Mzsstau to regenerate and to rule 
the world when the seventy weeks were accomplished. 

The Roll of the Book, containing all these surprising an- 
nouncements, has naturally excited the attention of the 
Scholars and Divines of all ages. Among the voluminous 
Comments of the laborious Cavin, none will be received by 
the British public with more heartfelt interest than his Lxo- 
TURES UPON Danret. The various illustrations of DanteL 
and THE ApocaLyPsE with which the press has always teemed, 
display the hold which these Divine Oracles have taken of 
the public mind. Various theories of interpretation haye 
been warmly and even bitterly discussed. The Preeterist, 
and the Futurist, the German Neologian, and the American 
Divine, have each written boldly and copiously; and the 
public of Christendom have read with avidity, because they 
have been taught that these predictions come home to our 
own times, and to our modern controversies. Abstruse argu- 
ments and historical discussions have been rendered popular, 





TRANSLATORS PREFACE. Vil 


through the expectation of seeing either Pope or Turk, or, 
perhaps, the Saracen in THE WILFUL KING, and THE LITTLE 
HoRN. If Napoleon the First, or Napoleon the Second, if an 
Emperor of Russia, or a Pacha of Egypt, can be discovered 
in the King of the South, pushing at the King of the North 
—then the deep significance of the Prophecy to us is at once 

- acknowledged, and the intensity of its brightness descends 
directly upon owr own generation. If the “twelve hundred 
and ninety Days” of the twelfth Chapter be really years, 
then the blessing of waiting till ‘The Time of The End” 
seems to be upon us, since THE FrENcH ReEvo.Lurion, and the 
waning of the Turkish sway, and the Conquests of Britain 
in the East, are then foretold in these “ words” which have 
hitherto been “closed up and sealed.” 

Whether any of these theories be true or false, they have 
exercised a mighty power over the imaginations of modern 
Writers on Prophecy, and have so attracted the minds of 
Theologians to the subject, as to give force to the inquiry, 
What was Catvin’s view of these stirring scenes? Without 
anticipating his Comments, it may be replied, that he dis- 
poses of the important question in a few lines. “Jn numeris 
non sum Pythagoricus,” is the expression of both his wisdom 
and his modesty. In attempting, however, a solution of 
these great problems in Prophecy, the opinions of tHE RE- 
FORMERS are most important, and among them all none stands 
higher as a deep and original thinker than the Author of 
these Explanatory Lecturzs. It is enough for this our Pre- 
face to remark, that the bare possibility of the contents of 
this Book coming home to the daily politics of Europe and 
the East, adds a charm and a zest to the following pages, 
which no infirmity in the Commentator can destroy. 


In these Inrropuctory Remarks, we shall allude to the 
present state of opinion respecting the Genuineness and 
_ Authenticity of the Book itself, touching upon some of the 
_ conjectures advanced since Catvin’s time to the present, and 
_ adverting to the scepticism of German Neouoey, and the 
_ bold speculations of the amiable Arnotp. In confutation of 
all Infidel Objections, we shall next give a general sketch of 


Vill TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 


the History of Assyria and Basytoy, as it has been lately 
disentombed by the labours of MM. Borra and Layarp, and 
rescued from the intricacies of the Cuneiform Inscriptions 
by Hinoxs and Rawutson. By these means, the Nimroud 
Obelisk in the British Museum—the palatial chambers of 
KuorsapaD and Koyuns1k—the Winged Bull of PERsEpomis 
—the statue of Cyrus at Moorghab—and the magnificent 
sculpture of Darius at Behistun—all become vocal proofs 
of the truthfulness of Danzet’s predictions. A visit to the 
East India House in London will make us acquainted with 
the Standard Inscription of NesucHapNEzzaR, containing a 
list of “all the temples built by the king in the different 
towns and cities of BasyLonra, naming the particular gods 
and goddesses to whom the shrines were dedicated :* a 
journey from Baghdad to the Bir’s Nimroud, would shew us 
every ruin to be of the age of NeBucHADNEZZAR:’ the testi- 
mony of experience is here decisive. ‘I have examined the 
bricks in situ,” says Major Rawlinson, “ belonging, perhaps, 
to an hundred towns and cities within this area of about 
100 miles in length, and thirty or forty in breadth, and I 
never found any other legend than that of Nebuchadnezzar, 
the son of Nabopalassar, king of Babylon.”? These interest- 
ing researches into THE TIMES OF Dante will be followed by 
some criticism on THE BOOK OF Daniet. Here we might en- 
large to an overwhelming extent, but we are necessarily 
compelled to confine our remarks to Catyin’s method of 
interpreting these marvellous Prophecies. It will next be 
desirable to point out how succeeding Commentators have 
differed from our Reformer, while we must leave the reader 
to form his own opinion of his merits when he has compared 
his views with those of his successors. We shall present him, 
however, with sufficient data for making this comparison, 
and by references to some modern Writers of eminence; and 
by short epitomes of their leading arguments, we hope to 
render this edition of these celebrated Leorurzs as instruc- 
tive and as interesting as the limit of our space will allow. 


1 Major (now Colonel) Rawlinson’s Commentary on the Cuneiform In- 
scriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 78. 
2P. 76, Ibid. 


_o ed | i Seems 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 1X 










AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEI.. 


_ Tue tHrIrD ceNtURY of Christianity had scarcely com- 
menced, when the Authenticity of this Book was fiercely 
-assal Bod: by the vigorous scepticism of Porpuyry; and it 
_ would be totally unnecessary to allude to so distant an op- 
ponent, had not his arguments been reproduced by the later 
‘scholars of Germany, and adopted by one of our noble spirits, 
_ whom in many things we delight to honour. Although the 
_ Jews admitted this Book into their Hagiographa, and our 
Lord referred to its contents when predicting Jerusalem’s 
overthrow, yet these self-sufficient critics of our day have re- 
_ peated the heathen objection which JERoME so elaborately 
3 refuted. If we inquire into the reason for the revival of such 
_ obsolete scepticism, we shall find it in the pride of that carnal 
~ mind which will not bow down submissively to the miracu- 
: i lous dealings of the Almighty. The Prophecies concerning 
‘ the times of the Seleucide and the Lagidee are found to be 
Bitxcecdincly precise and minute: Licisen it is argued, “they 
are no prophecies at all—they are History dressed in the 
garb of Prophecy, written by some pseudo-Daniel living dur- 
ing their supposed fulfilment.” The Sacred words of Holy 
Writ become thus branded with imposture: the testimony 
of the Jews and of our Lord to the integrity of the Sacred 
Canon is set aside, and the simple trust of the Christian 
Church both before and since the Reformation is asserted to 
be a baseless delusion. The judgment and labours of Sir 
Isaac Newrov, the chronological acumen of Faser and Hatzs, 
are nothing but “the foolishness of the wise,” because Brr- 
_ THOoLDT and BrerK, Dz Werre and Krrms, have repeated 


















“cabeean times? Simply because its reception as the Word 
of Gop would overthrow the favourite theories of the Ra- 
_tionalists respecting The Old Testament. We cannot undor- 
take to reply to such objections in detail; we can only fur- 
‘nish the reader with a few references rN those Writers by 
kom they have been both propagated and refuted. We 


x TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 


shall first indicate and label the poison. The procemium 
of RosenmMuLLER furnishes us with a succinct abstract of 
the assertions of Ercunorn in his Einleit. in das A. T.,* of 
Bertuotpt in his Histor. krit. EHinleit,?” of Burex in his 
Theolog. Zeitschr.,? and of Griesincer in his Neue ansicht 
der auffatze im Buche Daniel,* The antidote to these con- 
jectures is contained in Haverniox’s article on DANIEL, in 
Krrro’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, and also in his 
valuable “New Critical Commentary on the Book of 
Daniel.”° 

Professor Henastensere® of Berlin has ably refuted the 
Neologian objections of his predecessors : the American 
vender: will find the sbgact ably treated in the Biblical Re- 
pertory of Philadelphia ;’ and the English student may ob- 
tain an abstract of the points in dispute from the elaborate 
“ Introduction” of Hartwell Hornz.® The various theories 
of these Neologists imply that the Book was written during 
the Maccabeean period, by one or more authors who invented 
the earlier portions by mingling fable with history in inex- 
tricable confusion, and by throwing around the history of 
their own age the garb of prophetic romance! The reception 
of any such hypothesis would so completely nullify the whole 
of Catvin’s Exposition, that we feel absolved from the neces- 
sity of entering into details. No disciple of this school will 
even condescend to peruse these Lectrurzs. It is enough 
for us to know, that these unworthy successors of the early 
German Reformers have been met with ability and research 
by Luprerwatp, Staupuin, Jann, Lack, and Stevpzet. The 
unbelief of a SemLER, a MIcHAELIs, and a Corropt, will seem 
to the follower of Catvin the offspring of an unsanctified 
reason which has never been trained in reverential homage 
to the inspired Word. The keenness of this perverse eriti- 
cism has attempted to explain away two important facts ; 
first, that Ezex1EL mentions DanIzt as alive in his day, and 
as a model of piety and wisdom, (ch. xiv. 20, and ch. 

1 Pt. iii. § 615, 6—4th edit. 2 P. 1563, &c. 

3 Pt. ili. p. 241,&e. ‘Pd 2me. 

’ Hamburg, 1838: an excellent treatise, in German. 


6 Die Authentie das Daniel, &c. Berlin, 1831, 8vo. 
7 Vol. iv. N.S., pp. 51, &e. ® Vol. iv. p. 205, &e. Edit. 8th. 


TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 4 xi 












xxviii. 3,1) and secondly, that the Canon of the Hebrew 
_ Seriptures was finally closed before the times of the Macca- 
beean warriors. Havernick also treats with the greatest 

erudition the linguistic character of the Book as a decisive 
proof of its authenticity. He reminds us that the Hebrew 
language had ceased to be spoken by the Jews long before 
the reigns of the Seleucide, that the Aramean was then the 
_ yernacular tongue, and yet still there is a difference be- 
_ tween the Aramzan of Dante and the late Chaldee Para- 
- phrasts of the Old Testament. Oriental scholars have pro- 
nounced this testimony to be decisive. Interesting as his 
illustrations are, the numerous subjects which demand our 
- immediate notice will only admit of our referring the reader 
to the Professor’s “ New Critical Commentary on the Book 
of Daniel.”” 

Happily there exists a strong conservative protection 
against the injury arising from sith speculations. They are 
Bd perfectly harmless to us when locked up in the obscurity of 
Fe foreign language and of a forbidding theology. But it 
_‘grieves the Christian mind to find a writer worthy of being 
i" classed among the boldest of Reformers giving the sanction 
_ of his authority to such baseless extravagancies. There are 
= many points of similarity between the characters of ARNOLD 
4 and Carvin. Both were remarkable for an unswerving con- 
 staney in upholding all they felt to be right, and in resisting 
all they knew to be wrong. Both were untiring in their 
_ industry,and marvellously successful in impressing the young 
with the stamp of their own mental vigour. Agreeing in 
| oe manful protest against the impostures of priestcraft, 
they differed widely respecting the Book of Daniel. Our 

modern interpreter, in a letter to a friend,® writes as follows 
concerning “the latter chapters of Danibls which, if genuine, 
would be a clear exception to my canon of interpretation, as 


oe se . 
‘there can be no reasonable spiritual meaning made out of 


Fis 
- 


Reet Wed i: 




















| Bleek, De Wette, and Kirms, suppose some more ancient Daniel to 
be intended. See Rosen. Procm.,p. 6. 

? The title is Neue critische untersuchungen uber das Buch Daniel. 
Hamburg, 1838, pp. 104. 
_ *See the Life and Correspondence of the late Dr. Arnold of Rugby, 
vol. li. p. 191, edit. 2nd. P. 195, edit. 5th. 


te pages 


a” Ta 





xil TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


The Kings of the North and South. But I have long thought 
that the greater part of the Book of Daniel is most certainly 
a very late work, of the time of the Maccabees ; and the pre- 
tended Prophecy about the Kings of Grecia and Persia, and 
of the North and South, is mere history, like the poetical 
prophecies in Virgil and elsewhere. In fact, you can trace 
distinctly the date when it was written, because the events 
up to the date are given with historical minuteness, totally 
unlike the character of real prophecy, and beyond that date — 
all is imaginary.” It is not difficult to detect the leading — 
fallacy of this passage in the phrase “ my canon of interpre- — 


shi oe 


best 


ea 


« 


tation.” This original thinker, with a pertinacity equal to — 
that of Catvin, had adopted his own method of explaining — 
Prophecy, and determined at all hazards to uphold it. As — 
the writings of this accomplished scholar have been very — 
widely diffused, it will be useful to notice the arguments — 
which he has employed. His “Sermons on Prophecy ” con- — 
tain the dangerous theory, which has been fully and satisfac- 
torily answered by Birxs in his chapter on “The Historical — 
Reality of Prophecy.” 

Dr. ARNoLD’s statements are as follow: Sacred Prophecy 
is not an anticipation of History. For History deals with 
particular nations, times, places, and persons. But Propheey 
cannot do this, or it would alter the very conditions of human- 
ity. It deals only with general principles, good and evil, 
truth and falsehood, God and his enemy. It is the voice of — 
God announcing the issue of the great struggle between good — 
and evil. Prophecy then, on this view, cannot be fulfilled 
literally in the persons and nations mentioned in its language, 
it can only be fulfilled in the person of Christ. Thus, every 
part is said to have a double sense, “ one Historical, compre- 
hended by the Prophet and his own generation, in all its 
poetic features, but never fulfilled answerably to the mag- 
nificence of its language, because that was inspired by a 
higher object: the other Spiritual, the proper form of which 





ha 


* Chap. xx. of “ The two later Visions of Daniel historically explained.” 
The Editor strongly recommends all the works of Mr. Birks on prophecy ; 
though he differs in opinion on some points of interest, he is deeply im- 
pressed by their solid learning and their chastened piety. 


TRANSLATOR 'S PREFACE. X1il 


neither the Prophet nor his contemporaries knew, but ful- 
filled adequately in Christ, and his promises to his people as 
judgment on his enemies.” “It is History which deals with 
the Twelve Tribes of Israel; but the Israel of Prophecy are 
God’s Israel really and truly, who walk with him faithfully, 
and abide with him tothe end.” Twice the Prophecies have 
failed of their fulfilment, first in the circumcised and then 
in the baptized Church. “ The Christian Israel does not 
answer more worthily to the expectations of Prophecy than 
Israel after theflesh. Again have the people whom he brought 
out of Egypt corrupted themselves :” and hence Predictions 
relating to the happiness of the Church, both before and since 
the times of the Messiah, have signally and necessarily failed. 
We cannot undertake the refutation of this general theory, we 
must refer the reader to the satisfactory arguments of Birks. 
We can only quote his clear exposition of the manner in which 
the Visions of Daniel confute these crude speculations: —“ In- 
stead of a mere glimpse of the sure triumph of goodness at 
the last, we have most numerous details of the steps of Provi- 
dence which lead to that blessed consummation. The seven 
years’ madness of NeBucHADNEzZzAR, and his restoration to the 
throne; the fate of BrtsHazzar, and the conquests of the 
Mepes and Perstans; the rise of the Second Empire, the 
earlier dignity of the Medes, and the later pre-eminence of 
the Persians over them ; the victories of Cyrus westward in 
Lydia, northward in Armenia, and southward in Babylon ; 
the unrivalled greatness of his Empire, and the exactions on 
the subject provinces ; the three successors of Cyrus, Can- 
BYSES, SMERDIS, and Darius; the accession of Xurxes, and 
the vast armament he led against Greece, are all predicted 
within the time of the two earlier Empires. In the time of 
the Third Kingdom a fuller variety of details is given. The 
mighty exploits of ALEXANDER, his total conquest of Persia, 
the rapidity of his course, his uncontrolled dominion, his 
sudden death in the height of his power, the fourfold divi- 
sion of his kingdom, and the extinction of his posterity ; the 
prosperous reign of the first Protemy, and of the great Sz- 
LEUCUS, with the superior power of the latter before his death ; 
the reign of PHILADELPHUS, and the marriage of BERENICE 





xiv TRANSLATOR ’S PREFACE, | 
his daughter with Awr1ocuus TuEus; the murder of ANTI- | 
ocuus and Berenice and their infant son by Laopicr; the 
vengeance taken by Evreraeres, brother of Brrentox, on his 
accession to the throne; his conquest of Seleucia, the fortress 
of Syria, and the idol gods which he carried into Egypt ; 
the earlier death of Caxuinicus ; the preparations of his 
sons, SELEUOUS, CeRAUNUS, and Antiocuus the Great, for war 
with Egypt, are all distinctly set before us. Then follows 
the history of Anttocuus. His sole reign after his brother's 
death, his eastern conquests and recovery of Seleucia ; the 
strength of the two rival armies, and the Egyptian victory 
at Raphia; the pride of Protumy Puitoparer and his par- 
tial conquests, with the weakness of his profligate reign ; 
the return of AntIocHus with added strength after an inter- 
val of years, and with the riches of the East ; his victories 
in Judea and the capture of Sidon ; the overthrow of the 
Egyptian forces at Panium, the honour shewn by AnTIOcHUS 
to the Temple, and his care for its completion and beauty ; 
his treaty with Egypt, the marriage of his daughter CLE0- 
PATRA with ProLemy PuinomeTor, and defection from her 
father’s cause ; his invasion of the Isles of Greece ; his rude 
repulse by the Roman Consul, and the reproach of tribute 
which came upon him through his defeat; his return to 
Antioch and speedy death, are all described in regular order. 
Then follow the reigns of SetEucus and Antiocuus EPpIPHanss, 
given with an equal fulness of prophetic detail, and close the 
narrative of the Third Empire. Even in the time of the 
Fourth and last Kingdom, though more remote from the 
days of the Prophet, the events predicted are not few. We 
find there, distinctly revealed, the iron strength of the Ro- 
mans, their gradual subjugation of other powers, their fierce 
and warlike nature, their cruel and devouring conquests, the 
stealthy policy of their empire, and its gradual advance in 
the direction of the East, southward and eastward towards 
the land of Israel, till it had cast down the noblest Kings, 
and firmly ingrafted its new dominion on the stock of the 
Greek Empire. We have next described its oppression of 
the Jews, the overthrow of their City and Sanctuary by 
Titus, the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place, 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE. XV 


and their arrogant pride in standing up against Messiah, the 
Prince of princes.”” 

If the latter portion of these predictions were really writ- 
ten previously to the events, they must be inspired ; and if 
a writer of the Maccabeean period could thus accurately pre- 
dict the Conquests of Rome in the East, the whole question 
is decided: there is no reason whatever why the events of 
the Second and Third Empires should not have been fore- 
told as clearly as those of the Fourth. Thus the very exist- 
ence of the Book before the Jewish Canon was closed is a 
fact which proves all that is required. These Visions then 
become “the voice of Him who sees the end from the begin- 
ning, and pronounces in his secret council, even on the des- 
tiny of the falling sparrow. They are designed to stoop to 
the earthly estate of the Church, while they exalt her 
hopes to the glory that shall be revealed... . They range 
through everlasting ages; but they let fall in passing a 
bright gleam of light that discovers to us the ass’s colt, tied 
at the meeting of their ways, on which the Lord of glory was 
to ride into Jerusalem. . . . Every step in the long vista 
of preparation lies before them, from the seven months’ reign 
of Smerpis and the marriage of Berenice with ANTIOcHUS, 
(ch. xi. 2-6,) to the seven months’ burial of (corpses) in 
days to come in the land of Israel, and the marriage supper 
of the Lamb.... They touch, as with an enchanter’s 
wand, the perplexed and tangled skein of human history, 
and it becomes a woof of curious and costly workmanship, 
that bespeaks the skill of its Divine Artificer: an outer 
hanging, embroidered by heavenly wisdom, for that glorious 
tabernacle in which the God of heaven will reveal himself 
for ever.” 


THE DIVINES OF GERMANY. 


Throughout this Preracr and the subsequent Disserta- 
trons the reader will find frequent reference to THE Divrnzs OF 
Germany. Some of these have proposed explanations of our 


‘« The two later Visions of Daniel,” p. 357. * Birks, p. 359. 


xvi TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


Prophet which appear to the English readerso manifestly erro- 
neous, that he may fancy we have spent too much space in con- 
futing them. But he who would keep pace with the Theologi- 
cal Investigations of the day, may derive improvement from 
perusing the hypothesis of Bertnotpt and De Werv#, and re- 
joice that they have elicited the able replies of HaveRNick 
and HenestenserG. In truth, the reader of DanteL must put 
aside for a while the laudable prejudices which he has been 
taught to cherish from his earliest days, and descend into 
the arena where the contest is fiercest,—whether our Prophet 
was contemporary with NrepucHapNeEzzar or Antiocuus. To 
many the question itself is startling, and that we may be 
prepared to meet it, thoroughly furnished with available 
armory, let us glance over the wide field of Continental 
Rationalism as far as it concerns the Authenticity of Daniel. 








i Ds es este Reel Ste 


7 
{ 
| 


a ant 


The system under review is a melancholy off-shoot from — 
the teaching of Luruxr and his intrepid followers. They — 
led men away from form, and ceremony, and imposture, — 


to rely upon one book as their Rule of Faith and Duty. 
They did more—they sifted the chaff from the wheat, and 
by discarding the Apocrypna, placed before the eager atten- 
tion of mankind the pure word of heaven. LurHer and 


CaLvINn held very distinct ideas about Revelation and Justi- — 


fication, and enforced very boldly their views of the only 
Books which were written by the penmanship of the Al- 


mighty. Theirs was a work of purification and of recon- — 


struction on the assertion of the existence of a Divine Reve- 
lation, of its being contained in the Old and New Testaments, 
and of these documents being the only Inspired Records of 
what we are to believe, and how we are to live. In pro- 
cess of time, each Book became the subject of separate study 
—its history, its criticism, and its preservation were respec- 
tively examined with intense eagerness—and a vast amount 
of information was collected, which was totally unkown to 
the Early Reformers. It soon became apparent that the 
Reformed Churches were living under a totally different state 
of things from that described in the Old Testament. The 
events, for instance, of this Book of Danret all seemed so 
mingled and so intertwined; the ordinary occurrences’ of 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE. XVli 


every-day life are so interlaced with marvellous dreams 
and visions, and the conduct and passions of monarchs seem 
so singularly controlled by an unseen Mind, that the question 
occurs, Is all this literally true? Did it all actually come 
to pass exactly as it is recorded? Or, Is it allegorical, or a 
historical romance, or only partially inspired by Jehovah, 
and tinged in its style and diction with the natural exagge- 
ration of Oriental imagery? Such inquiries shew us how 
the mind seeks to fathom the mysteries of what is offered to 
its veneration, and have led to the conclusion, that the Sa- 
ered Books of the Hebrews are not all pure revelation, but 
that they contain it amidst much extraneous matter." The 
writers to whom we refer have ever since the sixteenth cen- 
tury been attempting to define how much of the Hebrew 
Scriptures is the pure and spiritual Revelation of the Divine 
Mind to us, and how much is the unavoidable impurity of 
the channel through which it has been conveyed. With the 
names of some later critics, the modern Theologian is fami- 
liar. GxsENIUS, WEGSCHEIDER, and R6nr, yet retain a power- 
ful influence over the minds of later students, while ScuuLtTz 
at Breslau, GIESELER at GOttingen, ALtMaNN at Heidelberg, 
BRETSCHNEIDER at Gotha, Dre Wxrre—lately deceased—at 
Basle, Harz at Jena, and WIENER at Leipsic, are writers 
who worship irreverently at the shrine of human reason, 
and either qualify or deny the Inspiration of Revelation. 


FALSE SYSTEMS OF SCRIPTURE EXPOSITION. 


An important change was necessarily made on the minds 
of the successors of the Reformers, by the more general 
spread of Classical Literature, and a far better acquaintance 
with Hebrew philology. Here, we must allow, that some of 
the disciples of Luruzr and Cavin were better furnished 
for the work of Interpretation than their more Christian- 
minded masters. Ernesti, the learned philologer of Leipsic, 
in 1761 laid down “ The Laws of a wise Interpretation,’ and 
has ever since been considered as the founder of a scholar- 


1? See Téllner’s Die heilige Eingebund der heiligen Schrift. Linden, 
1771, quoted in Am. Saintes’ Hist. Rat., 1849. 


VOL. I. B 





XViil TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


like system of Scriptural Exposition. His principles are 
now universally admitted, viz, that we must make use of 
history and philology of the views of the period at which — 
each Book was written, and of all those appliances which — 
improved scholarship has provided in the case of the Classi- 
cal Authors of Greece and Rome. Every attentive reader 
of German Theology must perceive, that too many of their 
celebrated Critics have rested in this outward appeal to 
mere reason and research. SemieR and Tirrmany, Mr 
CHAELIS and Henxr, have pursued this system of accommo- 
dation so far, that they-have destroyed the very spirit and 
essence of a Divine Revelation. In the Prophets, and espe- 
cially in Danizt, whom Semuer includes among the doubt- 
ful Books, there is a spiritual meaning only to be compre- 
hended by the moral and religious faculties ; and except this 
spirit be elicited, the merely outward form of prophetie dic- 
tion can effect no religious result. Let Rour and Pavivs 
sneer as they please, at the mysticism and pietism of the 
Evangelic Reformers, we must still contend, that without a 
spirituality similar ‘to theirs, all comments are essentially 
lifeless and profitless to the soul of man. They may display 
erudition, but they will not aid the spirit which hungers 
and thirsts after righteousness on its way towards heayen. | 
Every student who desires to become familiar with these 
discussions, may consult with advantage the Dissertations of 
HenestenserG, who has written fully and ably on The Gen- 
uineness of our Prophet. He has sketched, historically, the 
attacks which have been made, and has answered every 
possible objection. The impurity of the Hebrew, the words 
supposed to be Greek, the silence of Sirach, the disrespect 
shewn by the Jews, and the position in the Canon of Serip- 
ture, are all ably discussed. The miracles have been called 
“profuse in number and aimless in purpose ;” historical 
errors have been asserted, and statements called contradic- 
tory, or suspicious, or improbable ; many ideas and usages 
have been said to belong to later times. These and similar 
arguments are used to shew the Book to be the production 
of the times of AnrrocHus EprpHanzs, but they have been 
fully treated by this orthodox Professor at Berlin. He dis- 








‘ 


TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. xX1x 


cusses most ably, and with the most laborious erudition, 
those marvellous Prophecies of this Sacred Book, which have 
necessarily provoked a host of assailants. He reminds us 
that in the earliest ages, Porpuyry devoted his twelfth book 
to the assault upon this Prophet, and that we are indebted to 
JEROME for a knowledge of his objections as well as for their 
refutation. He asserted that.the Book was composed during 
the reign of Anriocuus EpipHanres in Greek, “and that 
Daniext did not so much predict future events as narrate 
past ones.”* Though the imperial commands condemned 
his works to the flames, yet Evsepius of Ceesarea, MreTHo- 
pius of Tyre, and Apottinaris of Laodicea, have ably refuted 
them. In later times, the first scholar-like attack upon the 
genuineness of various portions was made by J. D. Micua- 
Elis. Cottins and Semuer, Sprnoza and Hospss, had each 
condemned the Book after his own manner: but it was left 
for Ercuuorn” to lead the host of those later Neologians 


_ who have displayed their vanity and their scepticism, by the 


boastfulness of their learning and the emptiness of their con- 


‘clusions. Herzen and Corropi treat it as the work of an 
impostor; while Brertnotpt, GrRiEsINGER, and GZ£ESENIUS, 
have each their own theory concerning its authorship and 


contents. Other Critics have followed the footsteps of 
these into paths most dangerous and delusive. 

Having replied to the most subtle objections against the 
Genuineness of these Prophecies, HenGstENBERG proceeds to 
uphold the direct arguments in its favour. He first discusses 
the testimony of the author himself, and then enters upon 
its reception into the Canon of the Sacred Writings. He 
comments at full length on the important passage in JosE- 


_ PHUs contra Apion. i. 8, and shews the groundlessness of 
_ every assertion which impugns its Canonical value. Henext 


‘proves that the declaration of our Lord assumes the prophe- 


_ tical authority of the work, and traces its existence in pre- 


, 


; 
x 
- 


Maccabeean times. The alleged exhibition of these Writings 


to ALEXANDER THE GREAT and the exposition of their con- 


tents to the Grecian Conqueror of the East, form a singular 


1 Jerome’s Proemiwm in Dan., Op. tom. v. p. 267. 
* Kinleitung in A. T. 


xx TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


episode in the midst of profound criticism. The incorreet- 
ness of the Alexandrine Version and its rejection by the 
Early Church, who substituted that of Theodotion for it, is 
‘turned into an argument against the Maccabeean origin of the 
original ; for certainly, a composition of which the author 
and the translators were nearly contemporary, might be bet- 
ter translated, than one separated by an interval of many 
ages. Then the peculiar features and complexion of the 
original language point out the exact period to which the 
writing is to be assigned. The historical accuracy, the ap- 
parent discrepancies, and yet the real agreement with Pro- 
fane Narratives, all strengthen the assertion, that the writer 
lived during the times of the Babylonian and Persian Mon- 
archies. Another argument, as strong as any of the for- 
mer, is deduced from the nature of the symbolism used 
throughout the Book. The reasonings of HencsTENBERG 
have now received additional confirmation from the excaya- 
tions of Layarp. The prevalence of animal imagery, rudely 
grotesque and awkwardly gigantic, is characteristic of Chal- 
dean times, and bespeaks an era previous to the Medo-Per- 
sian Sculptures at Persepolis. Summing up his reasonings, 
the Professor quotes the observation of Fenzton: “ Lisez 
DanieEx, dénon¢ant a Balthasar la vengeance de Dieu toute 
préte a fondre sur lui, et cherchez dans les plus sublimes ori- 
ginaux de l’antiquité quelque chose quon puisse comparer 
a ces endroits la !” 


ENGLISH PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL. 


The speculations which we have hitherto discussed are 
not confined within the limits of unreadable German Nzo- 
LoGy: they have been transfused into English Philosophy, 
and presented in a popular form to the readers of our cur- 
rent literature. In a learned and speculative Work, entitled 
“The Progress of the Intellect, as exemplified in the Reli- 
gious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews,” the writer * 
has adopted the untenable hypothesis of the German Neolo- 
gists. In his second section of a chapter on the “ Notion of 


1 By Robert William Mackay. 2 vols. 8vo. 1850. 





TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. Xxl 


a supernatural Messiah,” he writes as follows: “ During the 
severe persecution under Antiocuus EpipHanes, when the 
eause of Hebrew faith in its struggle with colossal heathen- 
ism seemed desperate, and when, notwithstanding some 
bright examples of heroism, the majority of the higher class 
was inclined to submit and to apostatize, an unknown wri- 
ter adopted the ancient name of Danret, in order to revive 
the almost extinct hopes of his countrymen, and to exem- 
plify the proper bearing of a faithful Hebrew in the presence 
of a Gentile Tyrant. ... The object of pseudo-Daniel is 
to foreshow, under a form adapted to make the deepest im- 
pression on his countrymen, by a prophecy, half-allusive, 
half-apocalyptic, the approaching destruction of heathenism 
through the advent of Messiah. Immediately after the over- 
throw of the Four Beasts, emblematic of four successive 
heathen Empires, the last being the Macedonian with its 
offset, the Syrian; the ‘kingdom’ would devolve to the 
‘Saints of the Most High,’ that is, to the Messianic Esta- 
blishment of Jewish expectation, presided over by a being 
appearing in the clouds, and distinguished, like the angels, 
by his human form from the uncouth symbols of the Gentile 
Monarchies.”* He treats “Messiah” as a “ title which hither- ' 
to confined to human anointed authorities, such as kings, 
priests, or prophets, became henceforth, specifically appro- 
priated to the ideal personage who was to be the Hope, the 


_ Expectation, and the Salvation of Isracl.’ He discusses the 


Seventy Weeks as the fiction of the imaginary Danizt, and 
terms the accompanying predictions “ adventurous,” and as 
turning out “as fallacious as all that had preceded them.” 


His fourth section on Danret’s Messrau is, if possible, more 


Pe Seleeae 8 a ee 


‘ a 
a. 
: 


Zz met 


wildly conjectural than the two preceding ones. Daniel’s 


_ idea, says he, of a supernatural leader called “Son of Man,” 


became afterwards “a basis of mystical Christology.” Those 
glowing passages of this Prophet, which fill the Christian 
mind with awe and delight, are to this theorist “ the earthly 
or Messianic resurrection of pious Hebrews, which was all 
- that was originally contemplated in the prediction.” In thus 
peempting to overthrow the Inspired authority of Daniz1, 


1 Vol. ii. § 2, “ Time of Messiah’s coming,” p. 307. 


uy 
%- 
4 





Xxil TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


he mingles the Books of Esdras and the Jewish Targum, 
and is eager to catch at any Jewish fiction as if it were a 
true interpretation of ancient prophecy. He alludes to puer- 
ile Rabbinical fables as really explanatory of the Divine Re- 
cords, and mingles Zoroaster and Marmonipss, GFRORER and 
EISENMENGER, as of equal value in determining abstruse 
points of sound criticism! The sections with which we are 
concerned evince the greatest research and the ecrudest 
opinions all hurried together without the slightest critical 
skill or philosophical sagacity. With materials gathered to- 
gether in the richest abundance, he has presented us with 
results which are alike baseless, futile, and injurious. Toprr 
and Papras, the Book of Barucn and the Book of Enoou, are 
all treated as on a level with the writings of Moszs or Tact- 
Tus, Justin Martyr or a German Mystic! The public, too, 
are in danger of being imposed on by a show of learning and 
by long Latinized words and phrases, which merely disguise, 
under classical forms, ideas with which the well-read Divine 
is already familiar; at the same time, they give such an air 
of scholarship to these speculations, that the unlearned may be 
readily deceived by their showy rationalism. The whole work 
utterly fails in its attempt to explain the rites and symbols 
of Jewish worship, and to give the slightest explanation of 
the “theories ” and “ philosophies” of the Old Testament. 
The tendency is to reduce it all to mysticism and symbolism, 
and to any other “ theosophy ” which leads the mind away 
from the Christian assurance of one God, one Faith, and 
one Spirit. 


THE RECENT EASTERN DISCOVERIES. 


The strongest of all possible arguments against these fal- 
lacious theories has lately been derived from Eastern disco- 
very. Fresh importations of sculptured rock are daily arriy- 
ing in Europe, from the sepulchres of those cities amidst 
which our Prophet dwelt. The more this new vein is worked, 
the richer it becomes. Are we to be told by Brieex that 
the writer of this Book transferred the events of which he 
was a spectator to the more ancient times of Assyria and 


ae 
re 


TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. XXili 


Babylon? and that NepucHapNezzar and BELSHAZzZAR were 
but fabulous characters, of which the original types were 
Antiocuusand AtExaypER?' Are ErcuHorn and BertHoipt 
to make Danret another Homer, or Virgil, or Aischylus ? 
Then let us appeal to the testimony of MM. Borta and 
Layarp ; let us visit the British Museum, and under the guid- 
ance of Rawiinson and Hinoxs, let us peruse, in the arrow- 
headed characters, the history of the Monarchs of Assyria 
and Babylon, and observe how exactly those memorials of 

antiquity illustrate the Visions of our Prophet. The assist- 
ance which these excavations afford, for the elucidation of 
our subject, is too important to be passed over, and we must 
venture upon such arguments as may properly enter into a 
General Preface, while they vindicate the historical accuracy 
of the interpretation which Catyin has so elaborately set 
before us in the following Lecrurgs. 





ANCIENT ASSYRIAN REMAINS. 


The order of THE Visions suggests the propriety of treat- 
ing, first, THE ANCIENT ASSYRIAN REMAINS; then those of 
Basyton and Prerseporis, with such notices of the Eaypr or 
THE ProLEMIEs as the connection of the history may require. 

The earliest memorials of Assyria have not been pre- 
served in the records of literature, but by durable engray- 
ings on marble and granite. Within the last fifty years the 
Pyramips or Eaypt have been compelled to open their lips 
of stone to speak for God’s Word, and the Roserra tablet 
suggested to Youne and CHaMPoLuion an alphabet by which 
they read on sarcophagus and entablature the history of 
the earliest dynasties of the Nile. What Lepstus and Bun- 

SEN have done for Thebes and Memphis, Dendera and Edfou, 
_Layarp and Rawson are now accomplishing for the long 
~ lost Niyzven, the majestic Bapyton, and the elegant Prr- 
_ seEpouis. It has lately been revealed to astonished Europe, 
a that a buried city lies, in all its pristine grandeur, beneath 
_ that huge mound which frowns over Mosulon the banks of the 
__ Tigris. Kuorsapap and Koyunsix, Nimrovp and Brutstun, 


* Rosenmiiller Prowm., p. 26. 











XXIV TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 


are now giving up their black obelisks, their colossal bulls, 
and their eagle-headed warriors, to become “ signs and won- 
ders” to our curious generation. In this general sketch we 
must avoid details, however interesting: we can only allude — 
to the first Assyrian monuments discovered by M. Borra, in — 
1843,! as containing a line of Cuneiform Inscriptions amid 
winged kings and their warlike chariots. They are deposited 
in the Louvre, and form the most ancient of its esteemed 
collections. ‘The elegant volumes of Layarp, and the more 
tangible proofs of his untiring labours, now deposited in the 
British Museum, have thrown new light upon the prophetic 
portion of the Elder Covenant. Two-coned Conquerors, 
winged Chiefs, carrying either the gazelle or the goat, sacred 
trees, and their kneeling worshippers— 
The life-like statue and the breathing bust, 
The column rescued from defiling dust— 

enable us to guess at the exploits of a long line of kings be- 
fore the age of Saul or Priam. The name of SARDANAPALUS 
is now rescued from traditional disgrace, and ennobled in the 
midst of a hardy race of ancestors and successors. Our 
progress in interpreting these arrow-headed mysteries, enables 
us to assign the date 1267 b.o. for the founding of NINEVEH 
as a settled point in Asiatic chronology. The earliest histori- 
cal document in the world is that on the north-west palace 
of Nimrovp, built by Assar-apan-pat. He informs us of the 
existence, and celebrates the exploits of TEMEN-BaR the first, 
the founder of Haren, at a time when the Hebrews were 
just entering the promised land, and the Argives were colo- 
nizing the virgin valleys of Hellas! The familiar names of 
SHALMANESER, SENNACHERIB, and ESARHADDON, are found in- 
cised upon the enduring masonry ; and it is now possible to 
ascertain who founded the Mesprza of Xenophon, who con- 
structed the towers in the south-west palace of Nrmrovup, and 
who stamped his annals on the clay cylinders in the British 
Museum.” The Nimrovp obelisk becomes a precious relic, 
since it enables us to ascertain, for the first time, the events 


' See his letters to M. Mohl inthe Journal Asiatique for 1843; April 
5, June 2, October 31, and also March 22, 1844. 

* See Major Rawlinson’s Commentary on the Cuneiform Inscriptions, p. 
57, and his references to the various plates of the British Museum series. 








- 
v 
Ai 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE. XXVv 


of those nine centuries, during which Nineveu existed from 
its rise to its overthrow. We are mainly concerned with the 
manner in which it confirms the truthfulness of the Prophets 
of the Hebrews, and with the unanswerable arguments which 
it supplies against the subtleties of German Neology. The 
eredibility of one Prophet is intimately bound up with that of 
another. Whatever confirms either [satan or Ezex1EL, throws 
its reflected light upon Danizet and Hosza. The god Nisrocn, 
in whose temple SENNACHERIB was slain, (2 Kings xix. 37, 
and Isaiah xxxvii. 38,) is repeatedly mentioned on the obelisk 
as the chief deity of the Assyrians. The “ Sargon king of 
Assyria” (Isaiah xx. 1) is most probably the monarch who 
founded the city excavated by M. Borra; and the occur- 
rence of the name “ Yruupa,” in the 33d number of the 
British Museum series, leads Interpreters to consider the 
passage as alluding to the conquest of Samaria. The very 
paintings so graphically described by Ezexret, (chap. xxiii. 
14, 15,) have reappeared upon the walls of these palaces. 
They are, perhaps, the very identical objects which this 
Prophet beheld, for he dwelt at no great distance from them 
on the banks of the Khabur, and wrote the passage about 
thirteen years after the destruction of the Assyrian Empire. 
The prophecy bears the date B.c. 593, and “ the latest As- 
syrian sculpture on the site of NINEVEH must be as early 
as B.C. 634.” We would gladly linger over these proofs of 
the truthfulness of the ancient Prophets ; but further details 
must be inserted in those Dissertations which accompany 
the text, and we close this rapid sketch of these Assyrian 
remains in the touching words of their enterprising Disco- 
verer. “I used,” says Mr. Layarp, “ to contemplate for 
hours these mysterious emblems, and to muse over their in- 
tent and history. What more noble forms could have ushered 
the people into the temple of their gods? What more 
sublime images could have been borrowed from nature, by 
men who sought, unaided by the light of Revealed Religion, 
to embody their conception of the wisdom, power, and ubi- 
quity of a Supreme Being? They could find no better type 
of intellect and knowledge, than the head of a man; of 


' See Vaux’s Nineveh and Persepolis, p. 263, edit. 2d. 


a 
7 
lo A 


XXVi TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 


strength, than the body of the lion; of ubiquity, than the 
wings of the bird. The winged-human-headed lions were 
not idle creations, the offspring of mere fancy; their mean- 
ing was written upon them. They had awed and instrueted 
races which had flourished 3000 years ago. Through the 
portals which they guarded, kings, priests, and warriors had 
borne sacrifices to their altars, long before the wisdom of the 
East had penetrated to Greece, and had furnished its myth- 
ology with symbols long recognised by the Assyrian vota- 
ries. They may have been buried, and their existence may 
have been unknown, before the foundation of the Eternal 
City. For twenty-five centuries they had been hidden from 
the eye of man, and they now stood forth once more in their 
ancient majesty. But how changed was the scene around 
them! The luxury and civilisation of a mighty nation had 
given place to the wretchedness and ignorance of a few half- 
barbarous tribes ; the wealth of temples, and the riches of 
great cities had been succeeded by ruins and shapeless 
heaps of earth. Above the spacious hall in which they 
stood, the plough had passed and the corn now waved. 
Egypt had monuments no less ancient and no less wonder- 
ful, but they have stood forth for ages, to testify her early 
power and renown, while those before me had but now 
appeared to bear witness in the words of the Prophet, that 
once ‘The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair 
branches, and with a shadowing shroud of a high stature; 
and his top was among the thick boughs. . . . His height 
was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs 
were multiplied, and his branches became long, because of 
the multitude of the waters which he shot forth. All the 
fowls of heaven made nests in his boughs; and under his 
branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their 
young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations ;’ for 
now is ‘Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness, 
and flocks lie down in the midst of her; all the beasts of the 
nations, both the cormorant and the bittern lodge in the 
upper lintels of it; their voice sings in the windows, and 
desolation is in the thresholds.’ ”? 


1 Vaux, p. 221. 





t 
. a 
bh’ 





a 


TRANSLATOR 'S PREFACE. XXVll 


ANCIENT BABYLONIAN REMAINS. 


_ As we travel onwards in time, and southward in place, our 
attention is attracted to those Babylonian antiquities which 
vindicate the correctness of the Comments of Carvin. 

After centuries of extensive empire, NINEVEH yielded toa 
younger rival. Thearmy of Sennacherib had been annihilated 
by the angel of the Lord ; Esaruappoy, his son, had planted 
his heathen colonists in the fertile plains of Samaria. Nusv- 
CHADONOSOR had won the battle of Rhagau; Puraorrzs had 
been slain, and his son, CyAxaREs in alliance with NABopALas- 
saR, had taken Nineven, and destroyed for ever its place in 
the history of Asia. Palaces of black basalt, bas-reliefs, and 
hawk-headed heroes, covered with legends of unbounded tri- 
umphs, no longer rose at the bidding of the servants of Bar, 
and the worshippersof Assarac, Beltis,and Rimmon. No more 

Her obelisks of buried chrysolite 

proclaimed her far-famed majesty ; for her new masters 
transferred the seat of their empire to the banks of the 
Euphrates. The renowned son of NasopaLAssaR now coni- 
mences the era of Babylonian greatness. This enterprising 
chieftain is no creation of poetic fancy. Hzxrroporus and BeE- 
rosus have recorded his exploits, and we have now the tes- 
timony of recent discovery to confirm the assertions of 
Daniel, and to throw fresh light upon his narrative. 

“ The earliest Babylonian record that we have,” says Ma- 
jor Rawuinsoy, “ is, I think, the inscription engraved on a 
triumphal tablet at Holwan, near the foot of Mount Zagros ; 
it is chiefly religious, but it seems also to record the victo- 
ries of a certain king named Temnin against the moun- 
taineers. Unfortunately it is in a very mutilated state, and 
parts of it alone are legible. I discovered this tablet on the 


_ occasion of my last visit to Behistun, and with the help of a 


telescope, for there are no possible means of ascending the 
rock, succeeded in taking a copy of such portions of the 
writing as are legible. ...I1 am not able at present to 


attempt a classification of the kings of Babylon, such as they 


are known from the various relics that we possess of them: 
nor, indeed, can I say with certainty, whether the kings re- 


' 


Xxvill TRANSLATOR ’S PREFACE. 


corded, with the exception of NresucnapNnezzar and his 
father, may be anterior or posterior to the era of NaBonas- 
sar. The Babylonians certainly borrowed their alphabet from 
the Assyrians, and it requires no great trouble or ingenuity at 
the present day to form a comparative table of the charae- 
ters.”' “TI have examined,” says this enterprising traveller, 
“ hundreds of the Hymar bricks, (near Babylon,) and have 
found them always to bear the name of NEBUCHADNEZZAR.” 
Borsippa was a city in the neighbourhood of Babylon, and there 
is monumental “ evidence of its being the capital of Shinar, 
as early almost as the earliest Assyrian epoch.” Temenbar, 
the Obelisk king, conquered it in the ninth year of his reign: 
the bricks upon the spot are exclusively stamped with the 
name of Nebuchadnezzar, being at this moment tangible 
proofs of the reality of the words “ Is not this the great Ba- 
bylon that I have built?’ The rebuilding of the city, and 
the construction and dedication of the great temple is no- 
ticed “in the standard inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, of 
which the India House slab furnishes us with the best and 
most perfect copy.” This valuable monument gives a detail 
of all the temples which he built throughout the various 
cities of his extensive provinces, it names the particular 
deities to whom the shrines were dedicated, and mentions 
other particulars, which our present ignorance of the lan- 
guage enables us but partially to comprehend. The vast 
mound of El Kasr contains the remains of a magnificent 
palace, supposed to be that of NesucHADNEzzaR ; but as these 
recent excavations are more to our present purpose, it is 
unnecessary to refer at length to this majestic ruin.? 


PERSIAN AND EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES. 


Again, in commenting on the ninth chapter, Catviy has 
followed the usual method of interpreting it of ALEXANDER 
and his successors: he naturally assumes them to be real 
predictions, and believes them to have been accomplished 
according to the utterance of their Hebrew captive. And 


* Com. on Cuneif. Inserip., p. 76. 
* See a description of the Kasr in Kitto’s Bib. Cyc., art. Babylon. 











TRANSLATOR 'S PREFACE. XX1x 


have we no traces of the foot-prints of Alexander now re- 
maining tous? Not long ago, a traveller, amid the barren 
plains of Persia, lighted unexpectedly on a magnificent ruin 
—alone, on a deserted plain—its polished marbles, and its 
chiselled columns all strewed around in wild confusion. This 
Chehel-Minar, or hall of forty pillars, was built by the Genii, 
said the Arabs, amid the desert solitudes of Merdusht. The 
Genii builders have lately been stripped of their disguise 
of fable, and the long lost Persepolis, destroyed by the 
mad frolic of Alexander, stands revealed to the world in the 
Takht-i-Jemshid. The grandeur of these pillared halls, these 
sculptured staircases, and fretwork fringes of horn-bearing 
lions, interests the reader of Daniel, through the inscriptions 
which they bear on their surface. The ingenuity of a Wes- 
tergaard and a Lassen has been displayed in deciphering 
them, and has enabled us to discover the original archi- 
tects. Cyrus and CamByses, Darius Hysraspes and XERxEs, 
each erected his own portion. One portion can be assigned 
to the Achznenian dynasty, and another to the monarchs of 
the Sassanian family. These inscriptions also point out 
where the rulers of Persia formed their sepulchral repose. 
The tomb of Cyrus at Moorghab, his statue discovered and 
described by Sir R. K. Portzr, and“ the thousand lines” 
on the sculptured rock of Behistun,’ throw a clear and bril- 
liant light on the statements of Daniz, as well as on the 
narrative of Herodotus. These passing allusions must suf- 
fice at present—further discussions must be left for dis- 
tinct dissertations—while the ninth and tenth chapters of 
Vavx’s Nineveh and Persepolis will supply additional infor- 
mation to all who are inclined to search for it. Enough is 
introduced, if the reader is impressed with the conviction 
that Daniet’s Visions and Catvin’s LecrurEs are no vague 
or cunning delusions, no skilful travestying of history, under 
the garb of either intentional forgery or weak credulity. 

_ As Persxpouis suggests the triumph of the He-goat, and 
the rising of the four horns towards the four winds of hea- 
ven, (chap. viii. 8,) so it leads us forwards towards the sub- 
sequent warfare between Asia and Egypt. The mighty 


1 Major Rawlinson in Journ. Royal Geog. Soc., vol. ix. 





XXX TRANSLATOR 'S PREFACE. 


king stood up, and his kingdom was broken: and the king 
of the south became strong and mighty, (chap. xi. 3,4) An 
index here points to the valley of the Nile, where there 
now exists a countless host of monuments, raised by the 
giants of the very earliest days of our race. On the day 
when Campyszs, flushed with victory, stabbed with his own 
hand the living Apis, and commanded the bones of the Pha- 
raohs to be beaten with rods, he struck to the heart the 
genius of the Nile. At that moment, the quarries were 
teeming with busy sculptors, numerous as swarming bees— 
massive monoliths were becoming Sphinxes and Memnons, 
while architraves and propyla, worthy of the TempLEe oF Kar- 
NAK, were emerging from the living rock. They all retired 
to rest that evening, intending to renew their labour on the 
morrow, but on the morrow bursts the avenging Persian, and 
that long train of workers are still for ever. But their unfin- 
ished handicraft remains for the astonishment of our later cen- 
turies. A perfect statue only awaits one final blow to detach 
it from its parent rock—there runs the track of the wheels 
which had come to transport it to either Eprov or Luxor; 
there may be seen the very marks of the tools which lay by its 
side all night, and were never used on the next fatal morning. 

Henceforth Egyptian art is transferred to the tombs and 
palaces of the kings of Persia. It is cheering to feel, that 
as our knowledge of the significance of these treasures ad- 
vances, they confirm the assertions of Holy Writ. Among 
the mural sculptures at Karnak, one of the captives, with a 
Jewish physiognomy, bears the title which we can now read 
—Youpau Mater, meaning a king of Judah. Tur Roszrra 
Sroyz in our National Museum, which is the basis of modern 
Egyptology, was sculptured as late as B.c. 195, and contains 
a decree of Protemy Eprpnangs, to whom Dantet is supposed 
to refer. The primeval antiquity of tHE Zoprac on the 
majestic portico at DENDERA, has now been disproved. “The 
Greek Inscription on the pronaos refers to Tispertus and 
Haprian.” The hieroglyphic legends on the oldest portion 
of its walls belong to the last CLeoratra, while the Zodiac 
was constructed between a.p. 12 and 132. While we will- 
ingly allow the connection between Assyria and Egypt as early 











TRANSLATORS PREFACE, xXxxi 


as the thirteenth century before Christ, and admit the occur- 
rence of its name on the Nimroud obelisk in the British 
Museum,’ and on the sculptures of Behistun and Nakhshi- 
Rustam,” yet we contend against that assumption of a false 
antiquity, which is assumed for the purpose of throwing 
discredit upon the prophetic portions of our Sacred Oracles. 
What, then, is the result of our rapid sketch of these re- 
mains of the dynasties of former cras? A complete over- 
throw of the baseless fabrications of German Neology. Till 
the arrow-headed character was deciphered, the history of 
NineEven was almost a blank tothe world. As Assyria and 
Babylon now breathe and live in resuscitated glory, so all 
that Danixex wrote is confirmed and amplified by the marbles 
and tombs which have travelled to this Island of the West. 
Hence this Captive of Judah really lived while the Head of 
Gold was towering majestically upon the allegorical image. 
Neither poet nor impostor of the reign of Anriocuus could 
have fancied or forged characters and events which accord 
so exactly with the excavations of a Layanrp, or the de- 
cipherings of a Rawuiinson. Sceptical infidelity must now 
hide its head for ever, and speculations of the school of 
Arnold must shrink into their original insignificance. 


POSITIVE EVIDENCE. 


The positive evidence of additional facts may also be ad- 
duced. This Book was translated by The Seventy many 
years before the death of Anriocnvs, and the translation was 
well known to JERomg, although it has not come down to 
our age. Bishop Cuanpuer has pointed out fifteen places 
in which Jeromz refers to it ;° and Bishop Hatrrax has col- 
lected many conclusive arguments on these and kindred 
 topics.* The words of Josepuus are explicit enough as to 
the received opinion in his day, “ you will find the Book of 
Dani£t in our Sacred Writings.”® Marmonrpzs, indeed, has 
attempted to detract from its high reputation, but has been 

, Kenrick’s Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, vol. 1. p. 44. 

* Major Rawlinson’s “ Commentary,” &c. p. 47. 


® Vindication of the Def., chap. i. § 3. 
‘ Warburtonian Lectures. Sermon II, 5 Antiq., Book x. ch. x. 4. . 


XXxli TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 


sufficiently refuted by ABarBANEL and the son of Jarcut) 





The arrangement of the Jews, which places this Book among — 


the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets, seems also 


ae 


to be intended to depreciate its Canonical value ; but while — 
the earlicr Talmudists place it with the Psalms and the © 
Proverbs, the later ones range it with Zechariah and Haggai.” — 
When Aquila and Theodotion translated their Versions, he — 
was admitted to the Prophetic rank: and although we can- — 


not absolutely determine the point from the MS. of the Sep- 
tuagint in the Chigian Library at Rome, yet the probability 
is highly in its favour. Origen places DanreL among the 
Prophets and before EzEx1zE1, following the example of Josz- 
PHUS in his first book against Apion. 


* 
JEWISH TESTIMONIES.—SINAITIC INSCRIPTIONS. 


Instead of following the beaten track of reference to JEWISH 
Comments and RassrnicaL TrapiT10ns, which Cavin always 
quoted and refuted, we shall here introduce a collateral 
branch of singular and valuable evidence. As the surface 
of the Theological world is much agitated by doubts of his- 
toric facts, originating alike with Rationalists and Romanists, 
it is desirable to fortify our evidence from existing inscrip- 
tions of correlative value with those of Nineveh. That far- 
famed seceder to Rome, Dr. Newman, speaks of some “Serip- 
ture Narratives which are quite as difficult to the reason as 
any miracles recorded in the History of the Saints ;” and he 
then instances that “ of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt, and 
entrance into the Promised Land.”* Anxious as the votary 
of either Superstition or of Reason may be to suggest doubts 
as to the recorded facts, THE Rocks oF SINaI are now vocal 
with the voices of the moving Tribes! Valley after valley 
has been found in which these Srnartic Inscriptions abound. 
“Their numbers may be computed by thousands, their ex- 
tent by miles, and their positions above the valleys being as 


1 Mor. Nevoch. p. ii. ch. 45. 

* See the Bava-bathra and the Megilla c. ii. Prideaux Connex., p. 1, 65, 
§ 2. Kennicott’s Dis. Gen., p. 14, and Disser. Prelim. to Wintle’s Trans- 
lation, p x. &c. 

* See his “ Discourses addressed to Mixed Congregations.” Edit. 2d. 





TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. XXXili 


often measurable by fathoms as by feet.” These hitherto 
unreadable remnants of a former age have now been read, 
and they become fresh confirmations of the truthfulness of 
the Mosaic Narrative. It is enough for our present purpose 
to refer to the conclusive labours of the Rev. CHARLES ForstTER, 
who has compared the characters used with those of THE 
Roserra Strong, with the Arrow-headed Character, and with 
the Alphabets of Etruria, Palmyra, and Persepolis; and has 
been enabled to read what neither BeEr could decipher nor 
Pococks explain.” By him they are shewn to record the 
bitterness of the Waters at Marah—the Flight of Pharaoh 
on horseback—the Miracle of the feathered fowls, the Mur- 
muring at Meribah—and the Uplifting of the hands of Moses 
at the battle of Rephidim. Thus the “Written Valley,’ and 
the “ Written Mountain,” have rendered their testimony in 
favour of Revelation. “No difficulties of situation, no rug- 
gedness of material, no remoteness of locality, has been any 
security against the gravers of the one phalanx of mysterious 
scribes. The granite rocks of the almost inaccessible Mount 
Serbal, from its base to its summit, repeat the characters and 
inscriptions of the Sandstones of the Mokateh.” Countless 
multitudes are supposed to be yet undiscovered. And what 
people but the Israelites could have engraven them? Pro- 
fessor BEER allows them to be all of the same age—the soil 
affords no sustenance for hordes of men, and never did pro- 
vide for the existence of a settled population. This wilder- 
ness may be periodically travelled through, but never has 
been permanently settled by mankind. The very execution 
of such works requires the use of ladders and platforms, 
ropes, baskets, and tools, and all the usual instruments of a 
long established population. But no people could have exe- 
 euted all this unproductive labour without a ready supply of 
water and food. If, then, a single generation carved and 
_ graved these countless Inscriptions, how can we account for 
the fact, except by the Mosaic narrative? Whence came 


= 
¥ 
a 
o 
st 
i 









1 Forster’s “ One Primeval Language,” p. 33, where Lord Lindsay’s 
letters are quoted. 

* Details are given at length in the interesting work quoted above. Pro- 
fessor Beer in his “ Century of Sinaitic Inscriptions” utterly failed to un- 
_ ravelthem. Leipsic, 1840. 


VoL. L Cc 


XXXIV TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


the bodily aliments, by which so many workmen were enabled — 


to carry out their hazardous employments for so long and 


continuous a period? Grant that IsrazL coming out of — 


Egypt performed them, and the difficulty is solved—adopt 


any other possibility, and the problem becomes perfectly 


insoluble! We forbear to enter further into this important 
discussion; it is enough to have awakened this train of 
thought, in accordance with our previous reasonings." 


THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 


The contents of this Book admits of an easy and natural ~ 


division. The first part has been called “ The Historical,” 
and the second “The Prophetical” portions. Each contains 
six chapters, and the Comments on each, with the Editor's 
Dissertations, will respectively occupy a Volume. THE 
HistoricaL Portion contains Predictions; but they were 
not uttered by Danzet himself, and seem to spring naturally 
out of the events of the times. It is not without its diffi- 
culties. The learned have differed respecting the existence 
of a second NresucHapneEzzaR, the person and character of 
Cyrus, and the reign of Dariusthe Mede. Strenuous efforts 


ital he ile 










have been made to shew that one NesucHapwezzar plundered — 


the Temple, and another was afilicted by madness: that the 


Koresh of the last verse of the sixth chapter is not Cyrus © 


THE GREAT, but an obscure Satrap of an earlier age. 


noble Duke, whose scriptural researches confer higher honour — 


on his name than the coronet he wears, has proposed an ela- 
borate theory for the better explanation of “ The Times of 
DanteEt,”” and the hypothesis has met with an equally learned 
reply by the author of “ The Two later Visions of Daytet.’”* 
A detail of the arguments on both sides will be found in the 
DIssERTATIONS previously referred to. The discrepancies be- 


tween Hrropotus and Xenopnoy, which Archbishop SECKER © 


tried in vain to reconcile, must be again discussed ; the eriti- 


1 Before Professor Beer’s attempt to explain them, Montfaugon had 
drawn the attention of the literary world to their value. See his Coll. 
Nov. Patr., t. ii. p. 206, where the narrative of Cosmas, the Indian traveller, 
is found in the original Greek. , 

* The Duke of Manchester. * The Rev. T. R. Birks. 


TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. XXXV 


eal value of Protemy’s Astronomical Canon ascertained, and 
many subordinate and collateral events examined. Catnvin 
makes no pretensions to minute Historical Criticism: he 
adopts the received opinions of his day, and if he sometimes 
errs, he does so in ignorance of other sources of knowledge 
which have since been opened to the world. But his dili- 
gence and his judgment have preserved him from errors of 
any ultimate importance ; and it must be always remembered 
that the Antiquarian Researches of later times have thrown 
a flood of light upon these distant Eras. Baseless conjecture 
has, indeed, done much to pervert and mystify the plainest 
truths; but the materials themselves are of a most varied 
and intricate character; and the satisfactory adjustment of 
these historical difficulties requires the highest powers of 
discrimination, as well as the most comprehensive grasp of 
all the conflicting evidence by which a doubtful event is em- 
barrassed. 


THE SEVENTY WEEKS. 


In attempting to appreciate Catvin’s ComMENTs on the 
Historical Portion of this Book, and of the celebrated period 
of “Tur Szeventy WezEKs,’ it will be necessary to advert to 
some abstruse points of Chronology. We would willingly 
avoid any tedious discussion of dates and figures, but the 
interest of many important questions now frequently turns 
upon such arithmetical proofs. A strong assertion of the 
Chevalier Bunsen must justify us in the course which we 
are about to pursue. “ All the results,” says he, “of Jewish 
or Christian Research are based upon the Writings of the 
Old Testament and their Interpretation, and upon the con- 
nection between the Chronological data they supply and di- 
vine Revelation. There are points, therefore, relative to 
- which it is of vital importance, both to the sound thinker and 
the sound critic, to arrive at a clear understanding before 
embarking upon his inquiry. . . . The question is, Whether 
the external History related in the Sacred Books be exter- 
nally complete, and capable of chronological arrangement ?”? 

1 Bunsen’s Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. i. p. 162. 





XXXVi TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


The reply should be given “ with a deep feeling of the respect » 
due to the general chronological statements of Scripture, 
which have been considered during so many centuries as 
forming the groundwork of religious faith, and are even at 
the present moment intimately connected with the Christian — 
Faith.” Let but these principles of the learned Egyptologist 
guide us in our decisions, and we may hope for the blessing 
of Heaven in disentangling many of the Historical intrica- 
cies which will soon come under our notice. 


THE PRETERIST, ANTI-PAPAL, AND FUTURIST VIEWS. 


In attempting to determine the intrinsic value of these 
LrEcturEs, it becomes necessary to compare Catvin’s Pro- 
phetic Interpretations with those of the Divines who pre- 
ceded and have followed him. The scheme proposed for 
interpreting these Vistons may be classed generally under 
this threefold division, viz., the PrarErist, the AntI-PAPAL, 
and the Fururist Views. The first view is that usually 
adopted, with some slight modifications, by the Primitive 
Church and the Earlier. Reformers. The second, some- 
times called the “ Protestant ” System, supposes the Papal 
power to be prominently foretold by both Danze and 8r. 
Joun ; while the Third System defers the accomplishment 
of many of these Prophecies to times yet future. If these 
three Systems be borne distinctly in mind, it will become 
easy to understand how the most popular modern explana- 
tions differ from those of the earlier period of the Reforma- 
tion. The Primitive Church has, with few exceptions, 
agreed in considering The Head of Gold to mean, either the 
Babylonian Empire or the person of Nebuchadnezzar; the 
Silver denoting the Medo-Persian ; the Brass the Greek ; and 
the Iron the Roman ; while the mixture of the Clay denotes 
the intermingling of Conquered Nations with the power 
of Heathen Rome. In interpreting the Four Beasts, the 
Lion denotes the Babylonian Empire; the Eagle Wings re- 
late to Nebuchadnezzar’s ambition ; the Bear to the Medo- 
Persians ; the Leopard to the Macedonians ; and the Fourth 
Beast to the Romans. The Ten Horns were differently ex- 


TRANSLATOR ’S PREFACE. XXXVil 


plained ; some referring them to Ten individual Kings, and 
others to Ten Divisions of the Empire ; some supposing 
them to commence with the Roman sway in the East, others 
not till the Fourth or Fifth Centuries after Christ. 

Cavin differs slightly from the earlier, and most materi- 
ally from the later Commentators. Supposing the Fourth 
Beast to typify the Roman Empire, “The Ten Kings,” he 
says, “were not persons succeeding each other in dominion, 
but rather the complex Form of the Government instead of 
a unity under one head.” The number “ten ” is, he thinks, 
indefinite, for “ many,” and the Sway of a Senate instead of 
a Monarchy is the true fulfilment of the Prophecy. The 
rise of one King and his oppressing three, refers to the two 
Cesars, Jutius and Ootavius, with Lreprpus and Anrony. 
How unconscious was CaLyvin that succeeding Protestant 
Writers would determine The “ Little Horn” to be the Pops, 
and the Three Kings, the Exarchate of Ravenna, the King- 
dom of Lombardy, and the State of Rome. Here the multi- 
tude of modern commentators differ most materially from 
the author of these Lecrurrs. The “Time, Times, and Half 
a Time” of this chapter, Catvin refers to the persecution of 
the Christian Church under Nero, and similar tyrannical 
Emperors of Rome, and gives not the slightest countenance 
to any allusion in these words to-a specified number of years. 
“Time and Times” are with him a long undefined period ; 
and “ Half a Time” is added in the spirit of the promise 
to shorten the time for the Elects’ sake. Those modern 
Writers, who think the Year-Day theory essential to the full 
exposition of the Visions of Dante, will be disappointed 
by the opinion of our Reformer. He takes no notice of 
either the 1260 years of the Papacy, or the 1290 years for 
the reign of Antichrist. Again, there are Writers who deny 
the Fourth Beast to refer to Rome at all. RosENMULLER and 
Topp are instances; and each of these has his own way of 
interpreting the concluding portion of this chapter. The 
former asserts it to be fulfilled in the Greek Empire in Asia 
after ALEXANDER’S death, and the latter supposes it to be yet 
future. According to Dr. Topp and the Futurists, it has yet 
to be developed. Its fulfilment shall be the precursor of 


XXXVlil TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 





THE FINAL Anticnrist, whom the Lord shall destroy with — 
the brightness of his Persona Apvent. This Antichrist 
shall tyrannize in the world for the “Time, Times, and 
Half a Time,” that is, for the definite space of three years 
and a half, till the Ancient of Days shall proclaim THE FINAL 
OLOSE OF THE GENTILE DISPENSATION, 

The three views, then, of the Interpretation of these Pro- 
phecies are thus clearly distinguished. The Preterist view 
treats them as fulfilled in past historical events, taking place 
under the several Empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and 
Heathen Rome. The modern Anti-Papal view treats “The 
Little Horn ” as the Pope, and the days as years; and this 
stretches the predictions over the Twelve Centuries of Euro- 
pean struggle between the Ecclesiastical and the Civil 
Powers. The Futurist is dissatisfied with the Year-Day 
theory: he cannot agree with the past fulfilment of these 
glowing images of future blessedness. Hence, instead of 
either AntiocHus, Manomet, Nero, or THE Pops, he sees a 
future Antichrist in the Eleventh Horn of the seventh 
chapter, in The Little Horn of the eighth chapter, and in 
The Wilful King of the eleventh chapter. He rejects en- 
tirely the Year-Day explanation, and every assertion which 
is based upon it; he takes the days literally as days, and 
supposes them yet unfulfilled. The “Toes” of the image, 
and the “ Horns” of the beasts, are not to him Kingdoms or 
Successions of Rulers of any kind, but’ single individual per- 
sons. The phrase, THE Pops, as equivalent to a “ Horn,” 
is to him a fallacy: as it does not mean one person, like an 
ALEXANDER or a SELEUCUS, or a single despotic Antichrist— 
but a long succession of Rulers, one after another.’ Fasr, 
for example, interprets “the Scriptures of Truth,” chap. xi., 
by extending it throughout all history, till the end of the 
Gentile Dispensation. Dr. Topp refers it solely to its close, 
and contends very strongly against the usual explanation of 
the Fourth verse. Extrorr, again, (Hore Apoc., vol. iii.,) ex- 
pounds this chapter to the 35th verse with great propriety 





1 A list of the chief “ Futurist ” writers and of their sentiments will be 
found in Birks’ “ First Elements of Sacred Prophecy,” where the Year- 
Day theory is ably advocated, and much useful information condensed. 

















TRANSLATOR 'S PREFACE. XXX1X 


and clearness, but passes at once from the Ptolemide and 
Seleucidz to the Pope, as signified by “The Wilful King.” 
The Days then become Years, and the various phases of 
the Papacy through many centuries are supposed to be 
predicted here, and fulfilled by the decrees of Justinian, 
persecutions of the Waldenses, French Revolutions, and 
catastrophes and convulsions yet to come. Our American 
brethren have adopted similar theories. Professor Busu in his 
“ Hierophant,” has inserted an able exposition of the “ Little 
Horn,” as unquestionably the Ecclesiastical Power of the 
“Papacy, * and introduced the Gotus and CHARLEMAGNE as 
fulfilling their own portions of this interesting Vision. Pro- 
fessor Stuart, however, of Andover, and some of his followers, 
have returned to the simplicity of the Earlier Expositors.” 


CALVIN’S PROPHETIC SCHEME, 


Cavin, then, was on the whole, a Preterist. He saw in 
the history of the world before the times of the Messiah the 
fulfilment of the Visions of this Book. They extended from 
NEBUCHADNEZZAR to Nero. “The Saints of the Most High ” 
were to him either the Hebrew or the Christian Church under 
heathen persecutors. He had a glimpse indeed of the times 
of the Messiah, and expressed his views in general language ; 
but he rejected the idea of any series of fulfilments through 
a succession of either Popes or Sultans. He saw in these 
four-footed beings, neither Mauomer, nor JustinIAN, nor the 
Ottoman Empire, nor the Albigensian Martyrs. Heathen 
Rome, and its Senate, and its early Caesars, were to him what 
Papal Rome, and its Priesthood, and its Gregories, have been 
to later Expositors. 

Our Sxconp VotumeE, which contains THE PROPHETICAL 
porTION of the Book, will be illustrated by many Disserta- 
tions, which will condense the sentiments of later Expositors. 
Ample scope will then be given to important details. Ex- 
tracts will be made from the most approved Moderns, and 


1P. 109. New York, 1844. 
2 Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, 1842; and Folsom’s Daniel. 
Boston, 1842. 


xl TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 





copious references to the best sources of information. It 
will be sufficient here to insert the reply of Professor BusH 
of New York to Professor Sruart of Andover, as illustrating 
the importance of the difference between those who adopt 
the Year-Day theory and those who do not: “ Denying m 
toto, as I do, and disproving, as I think I have done, the 
truth of your theory in regard to the literal import of Day, 
I can of course see no evidence, and therefore feel no inter- 
est in your reasonings respecting the events which you con- 
sider as the fulfilment of these splendid Visions. If a Day 
stands for a Year, and a Beast represents an Empire, then 
we are imperatively remanded to a far different order of 
occurrences in which to read the realization of the mystic 
scenery from that which you have indicated. As the Spirit 
of Prophecy has under his illimitable ken the most distant 
future as well as the nearest present, I know nothing, in 
reason or exegesis, that should prevent the affairs of the 
Christian economy being represented by Danrex as well as 
by Jouy. As the Fourth Beast of Danret lives and acts 
through the space of 1260 years, and as the Seven-headed 
and Ten-horned Beast of Jonny prevails through the same 
period, and puts forth substantially the same demonstrations, 
I am driven to the conclusion that they adumbrate precisely 
the same thing—that they are merely different aspects of 
the same reality—and this, I have no question, is the Roman 
Empire. This you deny; but I submit that the denial can 
be sustained only by shewing an adequate reason why the 
Spirit of God should be debarred from giving such extension 
to the Visions of the Old Testament Prophets. Until this 
demand is satisfied, no progress can be made towards con- 
vincing the general mind of Christendom of the soundness 
of your Expositions. The students of Revelation will still 
reiterate the query, Why the oracles of DanrEet should be so 
exclusively occupied with the historical fates of AnriocHUs 
Epipuanes? ... If I do not err in the auguries of the 
times, a struggle is yet to ensue on the prophetic field be- 
tween two conflicting parties, on whose banners shall be 
respectively inscribed, Antiochus and Antichrist.” 


? Hierophant, May 1843, p. 273. New York. 











TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. xli 


CGECOLAMPADIUS, ZUINGLE, AND BULLINGER. 


This is precisely the point that these Lecturss will assist 
in determining, and the following sketches of the opinions 
of the immediate predecessors and successors of our Refor- 
mer, will be useful in guiding the judgment of the reader. 

One of the most learned of the Commentators among the 
Early Reformers was GicoLampanpius, the well-known com- 
panion of Zuineis. Buiineer published his notes on the 
Prophets about fifty years before Brza edited Catvin’s Lec- 
tures. His character for piety and profound erudition stood 
high among his contemporaries, and his elaborate exposi- 
tions of the Prophets form a tangible proof of his industry, 
ingenuity, and Christian proficiency. Some account of the 
method in which he treats these interesting questions will 
here be appropriate. He divides the Book into the two 
natural divisions—the Historical and the Prophetical. His 
remarks on the former portion contain nothing which de- 
maids our notice at present; but his second division con- 
tains some valuable comments. He takes the Four Beasts 
of chapter vil. for the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and 
Roman Empires, dwells on the cruelties of Syria and Martius, 
TiseRIus and Nero; and accuses ABEN-Ezra and the Jews 
of denying this Fourth Beast to mean Heathen Rome, lest 
they should be compelled to embrace JzEsus as their Messiah. 
He is not satisfied with JERomer’s opinion, that the Ten Horns 
mean Ten Kings, who should divide among them the terri- 
tories of the Roman power. He takes the numbers “ ten” 
and “ seven” for complete and perfect numbers, quoting from 
the parable, “ The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins.” 
He quotes and approves of Hiprotytus, who asserts “ the 
Little Horn” to mean the Antichrist, to whom St. Paun 
alludes in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. APoL- 
LINARIUS and other Ecclesiastical Writers judge rightly in 
adopting this interpretation, while Potycuronius is deceived 
by Porpuyry in referring it to Antiocuus. But who is this 
Antichrist? Is he supposed to rule after the destruction 
of Heathen or of Papal Rome? Qéicotampanius furnishes us 


xlii TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


with many opinions—some supposing Mauomzt, others TRa- 
JAN, and others the Papat Sez. He quotes the correspond- 
ing passage in the ApocaLypsg, and implies that the succes- 
sors of Manomer and the occupiers of the Chair of Sr. Perer 
are equally intended. By thus introducing the modern his- 
tory of Europe and of Asia, he leans rather to the second 
of those divisions into which Commentators on Danie haye 
been divided. On this testing question of “the Time, Times, 
and Half a Time,” he assumes it to mean three years and a 
half: he has no limit of any extension of the time through 
1260 years ; adding, ‘‘there is no reason why we should be 
religiously bound to that number, or follow puerile and un- 
certain triflings.” He will not allow Antichrist to be only 
a single person, and thus throws an air of indefiniteness over 
the whole subject. 

Consistently with these principles, he interprets “ The 
Wilful King” of chapter xi. by both Manomezr and the Pa- 
pacy ; and explains how this twofold power should be de- 
stroyed in the Holy Land. The repetition in the numbers 
in chapter xii. is treated very concisely. Literal days are 
said to be intended, and the possibility of ascertaining cer- 
tainty is doubted. “If any one has detected any certainty 
in these obscure dates, I do not envy him: the exposition 
already offered satisfies me ; for it is not in our power to 
know the precise divisions of the time (articulos temporum).” 
Throughout the whole Comment of GicoLampapivs, there is a 


tone of picty, and a proficiency in correct interpretation — 


which we seek for in vain in some disciples of the Early 


Reformers. He was evidently a spiritually-minded man, and — 


was always preaching Christ in his Comments on the Old 
Testament. In this respect he equals, and if possible sur- 
passes the more elaborate Catvin.. The extreme spirituality 
of this eminent Reformer entitles him, in these days, to 
more notice than he receives. His constant efforts to 
honour Christ as his Redeemer, and the practical and per- 
severing manner in which he preaches the gospel of his 
Redeemer, in his Old Testament Exposition, should render his 


writings familiar to every sincere and simple-minded Chris- 


tian. And we are not surprised when we hear competent 

















TRANSLATORS PREFACE. xlin 


judges of the difference between CaLvin and himself prefer 
the tone of his remarks to that of his more vigorous ally. 


GROTIUS. 


The Commentary of Grorius is also worthy of comparison 
with that of Catvin. He is very precise and minute in 
shewing how the history of the East has borne out the 
truthfulness of the predictions ; and is, perhaps, more accu- 
rate in details than his predecessor: he differs, indeed, in a 
few points of importance, which will be separately noticed, 
but, on the whole, his remarks are correct and judicious. 
The Ten Kings of the seventh chapter he considers to be Sy- 
rian Monarchs, and enumerates them as Seleuci, Antiochi, 
and Ptolemzi. Potanus and Junius, two Commentators 
who are constantly quoted by Poozz in his Synopsis, treat 
the passage in a similar way. ‘The king to arise after 
them is still confined to the Jewish era, and “ the Time, 
Times,” &¢., are supposed to be literally three years and a 
half. The 36th verse of chapter xi. Grotius interprets of 
Antiocuvus EprrHanxs, and is supported by Junius, Pona- 
nus, Matponatus, Wittet, and Broventon. The “ Days” of 
the twelfth chapter are taken literally by all the Commen- 
tators quoted by Poouz from Cavin to MeEpg, and all sup- 
pose the period intended to be during the reign of the suc- 
eessors of ALEXANDER. MeEpE was the well-known reviver 
of the Year-Day theory. Before his time it was a vague 
assertion: he first gave it shape, and form, and plausible 
consistency, and since his day it has been adopted by many 
intelligent Critics, among whom are Sir Isaac Newton, 
Bisnop Newton, Faser, Frere, Kurrn, and Birks. 


MALDONATUS. 


The Commentary of Matponatus, the Jesuit, demands 
more extended notice, as he lived about the times of our 
author, and callshim Patriarcha Hereticorum, and looks 
upon the subject from exactly the opposite point of view. 
His exposition of JEREMIAN, Barucu, Ezexret, and Dani£t, 


a | 


xliv TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


was published at Moguntiw, (Mentz,) 1611. In lis prow- 
mium he sketches the life of DanieL, and defends his Book 
against Porpuyry, the Manicheans, and the Anabaptists. 
He quotes the mention made of Danizt by Ezexret, and lays 
it down as a rule, that our ignorance of the author of a book 
does not impeach its Canonical Authority ; and in the spirit 
of his Religious Society, lays special stress upon the judg- 
ment and decision of “ the Church.” He next argues in 
favour of the Apocryphal Books attributed to this Prophet, 
and then prefers the authority of his Church to the testi- 
mony of Jeromz. He defends the canonicity of the stories 
of Susannah and the Idol Bel, and comments on them in 
two additional chapters, and places “ The Song of the Three 
Children” between the 23d and 24th verses of chapter iil., 
translating from Theodotion’s version. There is nothing 
worthy of special notice in his remarks on the first six chap- 
ters; but the next six treat of the reigns of Christ and of Anti- 
christ. In accordance with this view, he decides upon the 
Fourth Beast of the seventh chapter as the Roman Empire, 
after rejecting the opinion of ABEN-Ezra in favour of the 
Turks, and that of Porpnyry, who thought it to be the sue- 
cessors of ALEXANDER. Respecting the “ Little Horn,” his 
wrath isstirred up, for “ the heretical Lutherans and Calvinists, 
and other monstrous sects,” had dared to pronounce it to be 
the Roman Pontiff. “ But this interpretation even their 
master, Catvin, has shewn to be absurd.”’ He combats the 
notion that by one term all the Roman Pontiffs are intended ; 
and then triumphantly asks, Where are the “ Three” whom 
this single one was to pluck up? He further inquires, 
Whether all were past in his own day, or all future? He 
determines that it is all yet to be fulfilled, and thus becomes 
an adherent to the cause of the Futurists. As neither the 
Ten Horns nor the Eleventh have yet come into existence, 
it is natural to conclude the Eleventh to be that Antichrist 
whom JEROME represents not asa Demon, but a manin whom 
“a whole Satan shall corporally dwell.” He shall reign, he 
thinks, three years and a half—a distinct and fixed period 
—objecting to what he calls “ figura Calvini,” viz., that an 


1 Comment., p. 673, chap. vii. 8. 





TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE, xlv 


uncertain period is intended by so clear an expression. The 
yarious opinions of his predecessors on the 86th verse of 
chapter xi. move rather his derision than his wrath. Their 
notions about ConsTantinE, and Manomet, and the Roman 
PontirFs, do not need his serious refutation. Almost all 
Catholics, he adds, both ancient and modern, refer it to the 
Antichrist. Healso accuses the greater part of “ the New 
Heretics” of stating the Michael of the 12th chapter to be 
Messiah himself ; and treats the “ days” of the close of this 
chapter as partly fulfilled under the Jewish and partly 
under the Christian dispensations. His inconsistency in 
this interpretation is more apparent than in the preceding 
ones; while his work on the whole is worthy of perusal, as 
he quotes with judgment the opinions of learned Jews and 
of the earlier Commentators of the Christian Church. 

Within the first century after the Reformation, the views 
of Divines respecting these Prophecies were far more 
in accordance with the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers 
than those prevalent in the present day. The student who 
would know how Metancrnon, OsIANDER, and BuLLINGER 
treated the subject in reply to Bettarmine, FrRERivs, and 
other Romish Divines, may profitably consult W1LLeT’s Hex- 
apla in Danielem, published at Cambridge in 1610, and 
dedicated to King James I. The arguments of the ancients 
_ inreply to “wicked Porpuirie” are collected and reviewed, 
_ the opinions of various Jewish writers are stated and con- 
_ futed, and no valuable remark of any preceding Commen- 
_ tator is overlooked. For instance, the Fourth Beast of the 
seventh chapter is explained according to the Jews, as the 
Turkish, and to Jerome, of the Roman empire: but he de- 
_ cides it to be the kingdom of Syria, under the sway of 
_ Seleucus and his posterity. The “ Little Horne” is said to be 
_ AwrTIocHus; and Catvin’s view, connecting it with Aveus- 
tvs and the following Emperors, is thus treated :—‘ But 
though these things may, by way of analogie, be thus applied, 
yet, historically, as hath been shewed at large, this prophecy 
was fulfilled before the coming of the Messiah into the world.” 
_  Boutuiyeer refers it to the Pope, and others to the Turks ; 
and “These applications, by way of analogie, we mislike 



















xlvi TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


not.” The “ Times” are supposed, by the majority of these 
writers quoted, to be single years, and the whole period 
three years and a half. His laborious industry respecting 
the “ Seventy Weeks” is most instructive ; and he deserves 
the greatest possible credit for the patience with which he 
has examined all authorities, and the acuteness with which 
he has discussed the most opposite opinions. He is careful 
in remarking the various readings of the text, and the dif- 
ferent renderings of all preceding versions. The eleventh 
chapter he treats as all fulfilled in the history of Syria and 
Palestine before the birth of Christ. He discusses with 
much ability the question, whether Antichrist is a single 
person, or a succession of Rulers, as Caliphs or Popes, 
and presents us with the decisions of the leading Fathers, 
Romanists, and Reformers on the ‘“‘ notes and markes where- 
in Antiochus and Antichrist agree.’ All who would see 
BELLARMINE fully confuted, and the enormities of this chap- 
ter brought home to the several occupants of the See of 
Rome, will peruse WILLET with eagerness and profit. He 
will also find Canvin’s Interpretations clearly stated and 
fairly compared with those of the most celebrated Reformers 
and their most acute antagonists. The days of the twelfth 
chapter are taken literally, and no hint is given of any ela- 
borate theory of a dozen centuries, extending through the 
modern history of Europe. To all who love to trace the 
progress of opinion, respecting the intercourse between men 
and angels, “ the Auncient of Daies,” the Opening of the 
Books, Michael the Prince, and the application of these Pro- 
phecies to the Turks, the Papacy, and the times of a yet 
future Antichrist, will find in the “ Hexapla” a storehouse of 
valuable material, where he may exercise, with all freedom, 
the liberty of choice. It proposes and answers 593 ques- 
tions, and discusses 134 controversies, the greater part of 
the latter division being directed against the doctrines and 
practices of the Church of Rome. 


JOSEPH MEDE. 


A formidable opposition to the principles propounded in 
these Lectures is found in the writings of JoserH MzEpg. 





TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. | xvii 





That learned and ingenious author is usually held as the 
ablest and earliest expositor of the Year-Day theory. It is 
_ neither necessary nor possible for us here either to confirm 
or confute all his hypotheses; we can only refer to his 
_ “ Revelatio Antichristi, sive de Numeris Danielis, mccxo. 
_ mocoxxxv.” (Works, p. 717.) The first part is occupied by 
_ refuting Brovantoy and Junius, who assert those mystic 
_ days to have been literally fulfilled during the Wars of An- 
tiocnus. ‘The prediction, he thinks, fulfilled in the twelfth 
century of our era, when the persecutions of the Papal See, 
against the Heretics of those days, are said to verify the 
words of the Prophet. Dr. Topp has thought this treatise 
_ worthy of a detailed refutation, and to all who are interested 
in determining whether Antichrist is a Succession of Rulers 
or a single person, his learned remarks are worthy of atten- 
tive perusal. In pursuance of his own ideas respecting a 
personal future Antichrist, he is led to dispute the division 
of ALEXANDER’s empire into four parts, and to quote at full 
length various authorities, especially Venema, who endea- 
_ voured to shew the number of divisions to be ten, and that 
_ the portion of chap. viii. usually interpreted of the Roman 
was really fulfilled by the Grecian Empire in the East.! 
i _ Catyin then, we find, agrees entirely with Venema, and 
__ by anticipation confutes. the arguments of Dr. Topp. He 
thinks it surprising, that men versed in Scripture can thus 
substitute darkness for light. He is supported by Mztanc- 
_ THON and Micuartis, HenastEnBerG and RosENMULLER, as 
_ wellas by Tuxoporet and most of the Greek Expositors. 
He treats those more leniently who modestly and consider- 
___ ately suppose the times of Anrrocuus to be figurative of those 
of Antichrist. At this “figura Calvini” Matponatus sneers ; 
_ and yet if we determine that Catvin’s solution is right, it is 
_ the very principle by which the perusal of Holy Scripture 
_ becomes profitable to us. “TI desire,” says he, “to treat the 
_ Sacred Oracles reverently ; but I require something certain.” 
_ “Tf any one wishes to adapt this passage to present use, he 


L 
BY 
i 
#. 


e — Sah? | ick hw 

















__'See Herm. Venem. Dis. ad Vat. Dan. Emblem., Dis. v. § 3-12, pp. 
_ 847-364, 4to. Leovard, 1745, as quoted at length in Todd’s Discourses 
on Antichrist, pp. 504-515. 





xlvili TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. 


may refer it to Antichrist,” on the principle, “ that whatever — 
happened to the Ancient Church, occurred for our instruc- — 
tion.” Hence he allows of a double sense, and raises a ques- — 
tion which has been ably contended for and against by many 
subsequent Divines. It is too important to be passed over, 
and will demand our notice in our Second Volume. 


The followers of Mrpr have met with a formidable anta- — 
gonist, and the adherents of CaLvin a staunch supporter in — 
the late Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of 
Cambridge. Dr. Lexx, in his pamphlet on the Visions of 
Danret and St. Joun,’ has stated his reasons for adhering 
to the Older Interpreters, thus adopting the principle of the 
Preeterists, and entirely discarding the slightest reference to 
the Popeand the Papacy. His conclusions may be exhibited 
in a few words. Respecting Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, “the 
feet must of necessity symbolize Heathen Rome in its last 
times.”* “Papal Rome cannot, therefore, possibly be any 
prolongation of Dantet’s Fourth Empire.” “These Kings,” 
represented by the Toes, ‘may, therefore, be supposed in a 
mystical sense to be, as the digits ten, a round number, and 
signifying a whole series.”* “The Little Horn” is said to 
be Heathen Rome—its persecuting Emperors from Nero 
to Constantine fulfilling the Prophetic conditions. The 
phrase “a Time, Times, and a Half,” is said to refer to the 
“latter half (mystically speaking) of the Seventieth Week of 
our Prophet.”* “Danzet’s Week of seven days—equivalent 
here to EzEexret’s period of seven years—is, we find, divided 
into two parts mystically considered halves, or of three days 
and a half.”’ . . . “That the Roman Power took away the 
Daily Sacrifice, and cast down the place of its Sanctuary, it 
is impossible to doubt. Trrvs, during the reign of his father 
VESPASIAN, desolated Jerusalem by destroying both the City 
and the Sanctuary.” Thus in his general principles of Expo- 
sition, this celebrated Hebraist pronounces his verdict in 
favour of Cavin and his interpretation. 


No notice is taken in these Lroturss of the Deutero- 


* Seeleys, London, 1851. 2 Sect. 1. p. 1. ® Tbid., p. 2. 
+P. 16. 5 Introd., p. xliii. 





TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. xlix 









Canonical additions to this Prophet. In the versions of the 
_ Seprvaaiyt, and that of Taxoporron, there are some additions 
to this Book which are not found in the Hebrew Canon. 
_J@ROME translated these from the version of Tuzoporion, and 
_ ably replies to the objection of Porpnyry, by denying the 
canonicity of the following treatises, viz., The Prayer of 
_ Azarias, the Song of The Three Children; the History of 
- Susanna, gad Tho Story of Bel and the Tica ace EvsEBIUS 
also. denies the identity between the Prophet and the Son 
_ of Abdias, the priest who ate of the table of the King of 
- Babylon. Dz Werte, in his Lehrbuch, has discussed the 
_ eriticism of these treatises with great ability. As early as 
_ the second century, the Septuagint Version of Daniel was 
superseded by that of Theodotion ; and the former was lost 
till it was discovered and published at Rome in 1772. The 
views of De Wertz, and of “ Auber or Pxstu, who contends 
\ against JauN for the historic truth of these variations,” will 
_ be found in the Addenda to Danizt in Kitto’s Cyclopedia. 
The Commentators of the Romish Church feel bound in 
i honour to defend these additional portions. Their best argu- 
* “ments will be found in a praiseworthy attempt of J. G. 
3 é Kerxuerpere, Historian to his Catholic Majesty Charles III, 
_ to explain some difficulties in this Prophet He considers 
< - the number of Danie1’s Treatises to be a dozen. He places 
eo he history of his own Youth first, that of Susanna second, 
pe Story of Bel and the Dragon third, and Nebuchadnezzar’s 
_ Dream fourth ; and then with great precision and clearness, 
i ‘enters upon fiese historical questions which need both acute- 
_ hess and research in their treatment.” BELLARMINE also 
} dw wells on the testimony of the Greek Fathers, but meets 
with an able opponent in Wizet, the laborious author of 


tl ne Hexapla in Danielem.® 
* It must not be forgotten that portions of this Book, like 
that of Ezra, are written in Chaldee. From the fourth verse 


of chap. ii. to the end of chap. vii, the language is Chaldee. 



















_ +See his “ Prodromus Danielicus,” p. 19. Lovanii, 1711. 

_ * See the Appendix where the opinions of various writers are collected— 
especially pp. 331-336. 

_ *See the Sixfold Commentarie, p.10. Edit. 1610. 


- VOL, I, D 


] TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 


RosENMULLER assigns as a reason for this, the desire of the 
author to represent NEBUCHADNEZZAR and the Magi as speak- 
ing in the language of their country. However valid this 
reason may be for the earlier chapters, it is not equally so 
for the sixth and seventh, since the Medes and Persians pro- 
bably used the Persian tongue. ABARBENEL, in the preface 
to his Commentarium, supposes that Chaldee was no longer 
in use after the taking of the city ; and that Danret, through 
ignorance of Persian, returned to the use of Hebrew. C. B. 
Micuwaz is, however, demurs to this, and suggests that the 
use of either tongue was arbitrary, just as modern scholars 
use either Latin or their own vernacular tongue according to 
their convenience and taste. The occurrence of this older 
form of the Aramaic idiom has been seized upon by the op- 
ponents of the authenticity of this Book, while its use has 
been ably explained and vindicated by Henestensere.’ 


THE RELIGIOUS, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL VALUE OF CALVIN’S 
METHOD OF EXPOSITION. 


In concluding our IntRopuctory Remarks it will be use- 
ful to offer a few suggestions on the Religious, Social, and 
Political value of Catvin’s Metuop of Exposrrion through- 
out these Lecrurzs. Such suggestions are the more appro- 
priate in these days when views directly adverse to our 
Reformer’s are extensively popular through the ingenious 
theories of Fasrr, Ettrorr, and Cummine. Those who haye 
imbibed their views will pronounce these Volumes profitless 
and barren. “ What can it benefit us,” they will ask, “in 
the present day, to know how many Kings reigned from 
Cyrus to Xerxes; the changes in the Empire of ALEXAN- 
DER ; the troops which fought at Raphia; the marriage of 
BrRENIcE, and the results of the invasion of Greece by An- 
TIOCHUS ?”” “ Why not suffer these antiquated facts 

' Authentie des Daniel, p. 310—on the other side, see Theologische 
psig 1830, p. 290, et seg. ; as quoted in Kitto’s Biblic. Cye., Art. Chald. 

; Birks, ibid. chap. xxi. Though the views of this writer, expressed 
from chap. xii. to xx. are diametrically opposed to those of Calvin, yet the 


remarks of chap. xxi. are so excellent, that we shall avail ourselves of a few 
appropriate sentences. 





* 








TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE, li 


of history to sleep quietly in the dust, and bend our strength 
to the controversies and practical movements of the present 


hour?’ May we not reply, that he is best able to under- 


a ee | 
ee ee ee 





stand and unfold the religious phases of the age in which he 
lives, who is most familiar with the events and opinions of 
all preceding times. No man can permanently impress his 
own age with the precepts of spiritual wisdom, who knows 
nothing but what his own eyes have seen, and his own hands 
have handled. The ever varied messages of the Holy Spirit 
have always combined historical reality with the deepest spi- 
ritual significance. The details of Profane History and its 
comparison with the Sacred Text will never, by itself, ena- 
ble us toreap the full harvest of solid improvement from the 
perusal of these Sacred Oracles. We must dive deeper than 
the surface. We must look at them in the light of one ma- 
jestic and solemn truth. They are all “ the foreseen counsels 
and works of the living God; the vast scheme of Providence 
which he has ordained for his own glory, and steps in the 
fulfilment of his everlasting counsel.” 

We are fully aware, that many will pronounce these Vo- 
lumes deficient in spiritual life, and in Protestant zeal. But 
the Christian who dares not dogmatize beyond the direct 
teachings of the Spirit of God, will apply them indirectly to 
the events of the present era, on the intelligible principles 
of Sacrep Anatocy. They thus become a portion of that 
Divine Lesson which fulfilled Prophecy is ever reading to 
the Church of God. They display His ceaseless dominion 
over the wills of Sovereigns and over the destinies of Na- 
tions. When abstract truths are felt to be powerless in 
breaking the spell of worldliness, and in piercing within the 
charmed circle of social strife and political party, these em- 
bodied proofs of an ever-watchful Deity may awe men into 
submission to his sovereign will. The hollow maxims of 
earthly policy will never be superseded till men reverence 


the Gop or Danrst, and, like the heavenly Elders, cast all 


their crowns of intellect and renown before His throne. 
From the days of NesucHapNeEzzar and of Cyrus, we see in 
every change the foot-prints of a guiding Deity. ‘“ The 


reigns of CamBysEs, Smerpis, and Darius; the arma- 


a 





lii TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


ment of XERxEs, with its countless myriads; the marches, 
and counter-marches, and conflicts, the subtle plots and 
shifting alliances of contending kings, long before they 
acwurted, were noted down in ‘ the Scriptures of Truth’— 
the Secret Volume of the Divine counsels. All of them, be- 
fore they rose into birth, were revealed by the Son of God 
to his holy Prophets ; and they remain till the end of time 
an imperishable monument of His Providence and foreknow- 
ledge. All was foreseen by His wisdom and ordained by 
his Sovereign power. The passing generations of mankind, 
while they see this blue arch of Providence above them, and 
around them, sure and steadfast, age after age, like Him who 
has ordained it, must feel a deep and quiet reverence take 
possession of their soul.” The minuteness of detail in the 
visions concerning ALEXANDER and ProLemy Sorer, and the 
repulse of AntiocHuUs, convey the same instructive lesson. 
“ Every royal marriage, like that of Berenice or CLEOPATRA, 
with all its secret issues of peace or war, of discord or 
union ; the levying of every army, the capture of every for- 
tress, the length of every reign, the issue of every battle, the 
lies of deceitful ambition, the treachery of councillors, the 
complex web of policy, woven out of ten thousand human 
wiles, and each of them again the product of ten thousand 
various influences of good and evil, all are pourtrayed with un- 
erring accuracy in ‘ the Scriptures of Truth.” .... “ The 
pride of Antiocnus the Great, his successful ambition and 
military triumphs, his schemes of politic affinity, nay, even his 
prudent regard for the house of God, cannot avert the sentence 
written against him, for his fraud and violence in the Word of 
Truth. In the height of seeming power, his own reproach is 
turned against him, and he tumbles and falls, and is not found.” 
If, then, we conclude with Catvry, that the persecution 
of the Little Horn and the idolatries of the Wilful King are 
past, on what principle are we to derive instruction from 
their perusal? By the inductions of a Divine analogy, by 
the assertion that “all which has passed ts in some sense ty- 
prcal of all that isto come.” “ The Saints of the Most High” 
are always the special objects of Jehovah’s regard; they 
ever meet with an oppressor as fierce as ANTIOCHUS, and as 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE, lit 


hateful as “ the Man of Sin ;’ but still, whatever their suf- 
ferings under a GuisE or an Atva, they shall ultimately “take 
the Kingdom,” and possess it for ever. Strongholds of Ma- 
huzzim there always will be, under either the successors of 
Meprct or the descendants of Manomet. The evidence of 
Gipson, which has been used so freely by many modern 
theorists, is equally valuable on the hypothesis, that similar 
relations between the Church and the world occur over and 
over again in the course of successive ages. A parallel may 
often be drawn by an ingenious mind between the perse- 
eutions of Heathen and of Papal Rome, and the temptation is 
always great to refer the fulfilment of Prophecy exclusively 
to that system of things with which we are immediately 
and personally concerned. Military ambition, subtle policy, 
the arts of Statesmen, the voice of excited multitudes, 
the passions of every hour, the delusions of every age—all 
must pass in silent review under the eye of heaven. They 
are repeated with every successive generation under an infi- 
nite variety of outward form, but with a perfect identity in 
spirit and in feeling. It may be safely asserted, that every 
social and political change from the times of NeBucHADNEZZAR 
to those of Constantrnz, have had their historic parallel from 
the days of CuarLemMaGne to those of Napotxon. Hence, 
Predictions which originally related to the Empires of the 
Kast, may be naturally transferred to the transactions of 
Western Christendom. At the same time, there never may 
have been the slightest intention in the mind of the writer 
to apply them in this double sense. We cannot venture to 
discuss all the arguments either for or against the double 
sense of Prophecy. Catviy, at least, opposed it strongly, and 


_whenever he swerved from the literal version, he substituted 


the principle of accommodation, according to the educated 
taste of an experienced Expounder of Holy Writ. It will, 
perhaps, be our truest wisdom to listen to the judicious ad- 
vice of Bishop Horstry :—“ Every single text of prophecy 


_ is to be considered as a portion of an entire system, and to 


be understood in that sense which may best connect it with 


_ the whole. The sense of Prophecy, in general, is to be sought 


in the events which have actually taken place. . . . To 


liv TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


qualify the Christian to make a judicious application of these | 


rules, no skill is requisite in verbal criticism—no proficiency 
in the subtleties of the logician’s art—no acquisition of re- 
condite learning. That degree of understanding with which 
serious minds are ordinarily blessed—those general views of 
the schemes of Providence, and that general acquaintance 
with the Prophetic language which no Christian can be 
wanting in . . . these qualifications will enable the pious, 
though unlearned Christian, to succeed in the application of 
the Apostle’s rules.” (2 Pet. i. 20, 21.) While this senti- 
ment is cheering to the humble-minded believer, another 
principle laid down by the same author must never be 
omitted. The meaning of a prediction “never can be 
discovered without a general knowledge of the principal 
events to which it alludes.” Let Cavin, then, be judged by 
this simple test—and before we venture to condemn him, 
let us be equally patient, and equally careful to gules all 
the information within our reach. 


CONTEMPORARY EVENTS IN FRANCE. 


‘The period when our Reformer addressed these Lucrurs 
TO ALL THE PIOUS WORSHIPPERS OF Gop IN FRaNcE, is now 
worthy of our attention: CALVIN writes from Genzva at the 
close of the month of August a.p. 1561, immediately pre- 
ceding that Colloquy at Poissy, to which reference was made 
in the preface to Ezexrzt.” His Letter depicts so faithfully 
the state of persecution in which the Christians of France 
were placed, and compares it so efficiently with the condition 
of Daniet and the pious worshippers of God under Nzsv- 
CHADNEZZAR, that the more we know of the times in which 
CaLVIN wrote, the more complete the parallel appears. An 
animated sketch of this eventful era has lately been pub- 
lished by the Queen’s Professor of Modern History in the 
University of Cambridge; and as the views of the Editor 
accord with those of the Professor “ On the Reformation and 
the Wars of Religion” in France, we shall abridge and con- 
dense his narrative, as the best suited to our purpose. 

1 See his four Sermons on this passage. * Calvin on Ezekiel, vol. i. p, xxix. 





4 





ae 


CE EE " 


— 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE, ly 


THE GENERAL SYNOD OF PROTESTANTS AT PARIS. 


When Catyry addressed his followers in France, as desir- 
ous of the firm establishment of Christ’s kingdom in their 
native land, he was at his College in Geneva ; but his labours 
and his Writings were all-powerful in influence with the Re- 
formed in France. Their numbers were large throughout 
the cities and villages of the Empire. Lrrevre and Faren 
were as father and son in ceaseless efforts to make known to 
these Gentiles “ the unsearchable riches of Christ.” Their 
evangelical preaching was signally blessed. Briconnet, the 
Bishop of Meaux, aided them in translating the Evangelists 
and in heralding the word of God, and so rapidly and widely 
had their gospel been received, that “a Heretic of Meaux” 
became the popular title for an opponent of the Papacy. 
Notwithstanding the hideous spectacle and the odious Mas- 
SAORE of the 29th of January 1535, when Francis I. cele- 
brated the Féte of Paris by the Martyrdom of the Saints of 
God, the Reformers were so numerous throughout the realm, 
that a serious conflict was approaching between themselves 
and their foes. On the 25th of May 1559, a GENERAL 
Synop or ALL Protestant ConGREGATIONS was solemnly con- 
vened and held at Paris—the ecclesiastical system of their 
Patriarch at Geneva was adopted, and his “ Institution Chré- 
tienne” became the source and basis of their Confession of 
Faith. Paris was but the energizing centre of an organized 
Church throughout the Sixteen Provinces of the Realm, 
while Synods, and Consistories, and Conferences formed a 
kind of Spiritual Republic, spreading like network over the 
land. But the hand and the eye of the Persecutor was upon 
them. Rome had its despotic tyrants both in Court and 
Camp. In the very midst of the Parliament at Paris, a con- 
fessor of the true faith appeared—but his courage was ex- 
tinguished by his condemnation. Dvusoure, a magistrate of 
eminent learning and illustrious family, in the presence of 
the King, in his place in Parliament, invoked a National 
Council for the Reform of Religion, and denounced the per- 
secution of Heretics as a crime against Him whose holy 
name they were accustomed to adore with their dying breath. 





lvi TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 


He expiated his audacity by his death, and before the grave 
had been opened for him it had closed upon the Royal Ty- 
rant, Henry II, who bequeathed his crown to a second 
Franois in his sixteenth year. And who knows not the 
crafty, treacherous, and intriguing wickedness of the Queen- 
mother, CarHEeRtne or Mepic1? Who knows not the ambi- 
tious worldliness of the two sons of CraupE or LoRRAINE— 
Francis, the Duke or Guise—the savage butcher of the Hu- 
guENots of Champagne, and Charles, the CarprnaL Lor- 
RAINE, the subtle agent of Rome’s most hateful policy? These 
artful brothers worked their way to supreme influence in the 
national councils. Having married their niece, MARY QUEEN 
or Scors, to their youthful Sovereign, they employed their 
vast influence for the wholesale martyrdom of the defenceless 
flock of Christ. In every Parliament of the kingdom they 
established Chambers for trying and burning all persons 
charged with heresy, which obtained the unenviable notori- 
ety of “ chambres ardentes,” “ But deep,” says the eloquent 
Lecturer, “called unto deep.” The alarmed and exasper- 
ated Huguenots, confident in their strength and deriving 
courage from despair, rose in many parts of France to repel, 
or at least to punish their antagonists. In the midst of 
the anarchy of the times, a voice was raised in calm and 
earnest remonstrance, urging toleration and peace. In Au-— 
gust 1560, the renowned Chancellor L’H6érirat appeared be- 
fore the King and an assembly of notables at Fontainebleau. 
He presents a Petition from the whole Reformed Church of 
the realm, and requests the royal permission for the free 
performance of public worship. ‘“ Your Petition,” says the 
King, “is without a signature!” “True, sire,” replies Co- 
Lieny, “ but if you will allow us to meet for the purpose, I 
will obtain 50,000 signatures in one day in Normandy 
alone!” His zeal might occasion a slight exaggeration— 
but the phrase presents us with data for conjecturing the 
number of “ the pious ” whom our Reformer addressed about 
a year afterwards. As soon as opportunity was given for 
listening to the glad tidings of salvation, large accessions 
were made to the hosts of the believers. Faren, though 
advanced in years, preached the truth to large and enthusi- 





TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. lvii 


astic assemblages. In the neighbourhood of Paris, the fol- 
lowers of Breza were numerous, and his admirers reckoned 
them at 40,000. L’Hépiran presented to the Queen- 
mother a list of 2150 Reformed Congregations, each un- 
der the ministry of a separate pastor, and he reckoned 
the number of the Huaurnots as one-third of that of the 
Romanists ! 


EDICT OF POISSY. 


At the very moment when CaLviINn was penning in his 
study the Letter which is prefixed to these LecrurEs on 
Danizt, the Edict of July 1561 was issued. It bears the 
impress of the restored influence of the House of Lorrarne, 
which ever proved an implacable foe to the Gospel of Christ 
as preached by THE Catvinists. That Edict forbad their 
public assemblies, and yet tolerated their private and social 
worship. It protected them from injury on account of their 
opinions, and provided for a National Council which should, 
if possible, settle differences which were in their nature irre- 
concilable. This important enactment was issued in the As- 
sembly at Poissy, held a few weeks after the date of the 
Letter which follows this Preface, and which has been al- 
luded to in the Preface to Ezexren. CALviN was absent, be- 
cause the French Court refused to give those securities for 
his safety which the Republic of Geneva required. But he 
was ably represented by Bzza, and a dozen ministers, and 
twenty-two lay deputies of the Churches. The dramatic 
taste of the French mind was gratified by the scene, for the 
tournaments of belted knights had now given way to those 
of theological disputants. In the Refectory of the great Con- 
vent the boy King was seated on a temporary throne. The 
members of his family, the officers and ladies of his Court, 
were stationed on one side, six Cardinals, with an array 
of mitred Bishops, were assembled on the other. The rustic 
garb of Buza and his associates, as they were introduced 
to their Sovereign by the Chancellor, contrasted strongly 
with the gorgeous apparel and the showy splendour of the 
Court and its attendants. The political Carnpinat or Lor- 


lviil TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 





RAINE and the subtle General of the Jesuits, Lago Lasquez, 
conducted the dispute against Brza. The Doctors of the 
Sorbonne watehed the sport with official keenness, while 
CATHERINE listened to the debate with secret contempt, 
having long ago determined to root out every Heretic 
as soon as she could throw the mantle of policy over her — 
cruelty. 


PARALLEL BETWEEN THE PROTESTANTS IN FRANCE AND 
THE JEWS IN BABYLON. 


The matured Christian is now enabled to see at a glance, 
that such Conferences are, of necessity, worthless as-to any 
progress of vital religion in the soul. The narrative, how- 
ever, may enable the reader to enter a little into the state 
of the Christians in France when Catvin indited his Prefa- 
tory Letter, and may justify the comparison which he makes 
between their lot, under the tyranny of such merciless rulers, 
and that of Danret under the sway of the imperious Nesu- 
CHADNEZZAR, and at the tender mercy of his colleagues under 
Darius. The parallel is as complete as it could possibly be 
between the temporal position of the pious in FRranoz, and 
that of the devout Jews in BasyLon—and the graphic de- 
scription of the Royal Professor of Modern History fully 
justifies the pastoral anxiety of the austere Theologian of 
Geneva. 


ARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESENT WORK. 


The contents of these Volumes are as follow :— 

The First VoLUME contains a translation of CaLvin’s 
elaborate Address to All the Faithful in France; and also 
of his Prerace to his Lxcrurzs. Their translation is con- 
tinued to the end of the Sixth Chapter, which closes the 
Historical portion of the Book. Dissertations explanatory 
of the subject-matter of the Commentary close the Volume, 
containing various historical, critical, and exegetical remarks, 
illustrating the Sacred Text as expounded by our Reformer. 
The chief of them are as follow, viz. : 








Cuap. I. 


Cuap. II. 


Cuap. IIT. 


Cuap. LV. 


Cuap. V. 


Cuap. VI. 


TRANSLATOR S PREFACE, lix 


The Date of Jenoraxim’s Reign. 
NEBUCHADNEZZAR—one King or two ? 
His Ancestors and Successors. 
The CHALDEANS. 

The Three Children. 
CorrsH—was he Cyrus the Great ? 
The Dream. 

The Image. 

The Stone cut without hands. 
The Statue at Dura. 

The Magistrates. 

The Musical Instruments. 

The Son or Gop. 

The Watcher. 

The Madness. 

The Edict of Praise. 
BELSHAZZAR and the feast. 

The Queen. 

The Handwriting. 

The Mepzs anp PERSIANS. 
Darius the Mede. 


-The Capture of Baxsyton. 


The Three Presidents. 
The King’s Decease. , 
The Prolongation of Dantet’s Life. 


The second VoLuME proceeds with the Translation of the 
remaining Chapters, which are the peculiarly Prophetic 
portion of the Book ; and the interest which every sound 
Exposition of these Prophecies has always excited through- 
out the Theological world, will render the following AppENDA 
acceptable to the reader. 

I. DIssERTATIONS EXPLANATORY OF THE LAST six CHApP- 
TERS OF Dantet, fully elucidating all important 
questions. 


II. A CONNECTED TRANSLATION OF CALVIN’s VERSION, illus- 


trated 


by the peculiar words and phrases of his 


Commentary. 





lx TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. 


III. A SUMMARY OF THE HISTORICAL AND PROPHETIC POR- 
TIONS OF THE BOOK, according to CaLvin’s view of 
their contents. 


IV. A notice oF SOME ANCIENT CoDEXES AND VERSIONS. 


V. A LIST OF THE MOST VALUABLE ANCIENT AND MoDERN 
British AND Foreign Expositions oF DaAnret, 
with concise Epitomes of the contents of the most 
important. 


VI. An InpEx oF THE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES QUOTED IN THE 
LECTURES. 


VIL. A copious INDEX OF THE CHIEF WORDS AND SUBJECTS 
treated in these Volumes. 


Before concluding these Prefatory Observations, Tux 
Eprtor would briefly refer to the fundamental rules of THE 
Catvin TraNnsLaTion Society, which very wisely exclude 
all expressions of private opinion. He hopes that no re- 
marks in this Prerace will be deemed inconsistent with so 
judicious a regulation. The clear illustration and the com- 
prehensive defence of our Venerable Reformer seem to de- 
mand the candid statement of some views which are adverse 
to the popular current ; but this necessity need not induce 
him to step beyond the limits of his province. It has 
been his desire conscientiously to vindicate his Author’s 
Interpretations wherever he is able to do so, and as fear- 
Iessly to point out wherever Catvin is allowed to be in 
error; but in both cases, the Eprror has scrupulously 
avoided taking any one-sided view of a great argument. 
He has attempted to exercise the utmost impartiality in 
quoting from a great variety of Standard Works which con- 
tain the most opposite conclusions ; and yet, in accordance 
with the first principles of these Translations, he has at the 
same time carefully abstained from pressing any sentiments 
of his own on the attention of the intelligent reader. 


T. M. 


SHERIFF-Hutron VIcakaGE, 
May 1852. 








IOANNIS CALVINI 
PRA LECTIONES 


IN 
LIBRVM PROPHETIARVM DANIELIS. 
CQ 


Ioannis Budei & Caroli Ionuillzo labore 
& industria excerpte. 


Cum Indice locupletiffimo. 








te FS 
2 


=> 








GENEVAE, 


Apud Iohannem Vignon, Petrum & 
Jacobum Chouét. 





M. DC. XVII. 


THE PRINTER WISHES HEALTH FROM THE LORD 
TO THE PIOUS READER, 


Haut to thee, Christian Reader !—I present to thee the Lecrurrs 
of the most illustrious Joun Cavin, in which he has interpreted 
THE PropHeciks oF DANIEL, with his usual diligence and clearness, 
and with that singular fidelity which shines throughout all his 
Expositions of Sacred Scripture. The mannerin which they have 
been edited by those two brethren, Jonn Bupaus and CHARLES 
JOINVILLE, it would be superfluous to dwell upon, since that has 
been clearly made manifest in the way in which the TweLve Minor 
PropHets were brought out two years ago by JOHN CRISPIN. 
For, in treating these Lectures, they have followed entirely the 
same course as they did in the former ones. Lest, perhaps, you 
should be surprised at the addition of the Hebrew context to the 
Latin version, I will explain the matter in a few words. Some 
studious and learned men very much wished to have the Hebrew 
text in the former Lectures which I mentioned, for the following 
reason chiefly, among others. It is exceedingly agreeable to 
Hebrew scholars to have that very fountain placed before their eyes 
from which this most faithful Interpreter drew the genuine sense 
of the Prophet. It is by no means unpleasing to those less skilled 
in the language, to see Daniel speaking not only in a foreign, but 
in his native tongue, and to understand how anything is originally 
expressed. Hence we have thought it right not to pass over the 
original words of the holy man. In addition to this, the same 
learned Interpreter, CALVIN, is accustomed first to read each 
verse in Hebrew, and then to turn it into Latin. It was desir- 
able to introduce this short preface, that you may understand 
his whole method of teaching. Besides, every one will judge better 
by his own perusal, what copious and abundant fruit all may derive 
from these Lectures. Farewell, and if you profit at all, ascribe the 
praise to Gop alone, who deserves it, and always pray much for 
CALvIN, his most faithful servant.! 


GENEVA, August 27th, 1561, A.D. 


1 This is the address of Bartholomew Vincent in his edition, a.p. 1571, which 
has the Hebrew and Latin texts printed together. It has been repeated in the 
edition at Geneva, 1591, with the omission of the clause “ ante biennium a 
Joanne Crispino ;” since, like the former, it contains the Hebrew and Chaldee 
text opposite the Latin, with a running Hebrew title. 

In the collected edition of Calvin’s works, Amsterdam, vol. v., a Dedication 
to that Volume occurs, dated 10™° Cal. Aug. 1568, which, although preceding 
Daniel, has no reference to his Prophecies, and is consequently omitted in this 
our work. It concerns the disputes of that period respecting the Lord’s Supper, 
and certain heretical perversions of the truth then current. 

The Address of the Printer to the Reader prefixed to the same volume, refers 
to Jeremiah, Lamentations, ''welve Minor Prophets,and Daniel generally ; but 
as it contains nothing suitable to our purpose, it is of course omitted. 





| 


LECONS DE M. [EAN CALVIN 


SVR LE LIVRE DES PROPHETIES DE DANIEL. 


& Charles de Jonuiller, 


3 


dé 
& tranflatees de Latin en Francois. 


Jes auditeurs : 


& 


Recueilles fidelement par Iean Bu 


Anec vne table ample des principales matieres contenues en ce liure. 


4 a #- i . 
EX 


\\ 
\\ 


YY. 
‘ Ss OAS 
X \" 


ee ae 


Lpayy If | 
| 


og | NN 


Ni 


< 














A GENEVE, 


De l’Imprimerie de Francois Perrin. 


M. D. LXIX. 


7 s 4 
5. 








DEDICATORY EPISTLE. 


JOHN CALVIN 


TO ALL THE PIOUS WORSHIPPERS OF GOD WHO DESIRE THE KINGDOM OF 
CHRIST TO BE RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED IN FRANCE. 


HEALTH. 


A.rHouGH I have been absent these six-and-twenty years, with 
little regret, from that native land which I own in common with 
yourselves, and whose agreeable climate attracts many foreigners 
from the most distant quarters of the world; yet it would be in no — 
degree pleasing or desirable to me to dwell in a region from which — 
the Truth of God, pure Religion, and the doctrine of eternal salva- _ 
tion are banished, and the very kingdom of Christ laid prostrate! 
Hence, I have no desire to return to it; yet it would be neither in 
accordance with human nor Divine obligation to forget the people 
from which I am sprung, and to put away all regard for their wel- 
fare. I think I have given some strong proofs, how seriously and 
ardently I desire to benefit my fellow-countrymen, to whom per- 
haps my absence has been useful, in enabling them to reap the 
greater profit from my studies. And the contemplation of this 
advantage has not only deprived my banishment of its sting, but 
has rendered it even pleasant and joyful. 

Since, therefore, throughout the whole of this period I have pub- 
licly endeavoured to benefit THE INHABITANTS OF FRANCE, and have 
never ceased privately to rouse the torpid, to stimulate the sluggish, 
to animate the trembling, and to encourage the doubtful and the 
wavering to perseverance, I must now strive to the utmost that 
my duty towards them may not fail at a period so urgent and so 
pressing. A most excellent opportunity has been providentially 
afforded to me; for in publishing the Lectures which contain my 
INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL, I have the very 
best occasion of shewing ‘you, beloved brethren, in this mirror, how 
God proves the faith of his people in these days by various trials ; 
and how with wonderful wisdom he has taken care to strengthen 
their minds by ancient examples, that they should never be weak- 





CALVIN 'S DEDICATORY EPISTLE. Ixv 


ened by the concussion of the severest storms and tempests; or at 
least, if they should totter at all, that they should never finally fall 
away. For although the servants of God are required to run in a 
course impeded by many obstacles, yet whoever diligently reads 
this Book will find in it whatever is needed by a voluntary and 
active runner to guide him from the starting-post to the goal ; 
while good and strenuous wrestlers will experimentally acknow- 
ledge that they have been sufficiently prepared for the contest. 
First of all, a very mournful and yet profitable history will be 
recorded for us, in the exile of Dantex and his companions while 
the kingdom and priesthood were still standing, as if God, through 
ignominy and shame, would devote the choicest flower of his elect 
people to extreme calamity. For what, at first sight, is more un- 
becoming, than that youths endued with almost angelic virtues 
should be the slaves and captives of a proud conqueror, when the 
most wicked and abandoned despisers of God remained at home in 
perfect safety? Was this the reward of a pious and innocent 
life, that, while the impious were sweetly flattering themselves 
through their escape from punishment, the saints should pay the 
penalty which they had deserved? Here, then, we observe, as ina 
living picture, that when God spares and even indulges the wicked 
for a time, he proves his servants like gold and silver ; so that we 
ought not to consider it a grievance to be thrown into the furnace 
of trial, while profane men enjoy the calmness of repose. 
Secondly, we have here an example of most manly prudence and 
_ of singular consistency, united with a magnanimity truly heroic, 
When pious youths of a tender age are tempted by the entice- 
ments of a Court, they not only overcome the temptations pre- 
sented to them by their temperance, but perceive themselves cun- 
ningly enticed to depart by degrees from the sincere worship of 
God; and then, when they have extricated themselves from the 
snares of the devil, they boldly and freely despise all poison-stained 
honour, at the imminent risk of instant death. A more cruel and 
_ formidable contest will follow when the companions of DanIzL, as 
a memorable example of incredible constancy, are never turned 
_ aside by atrocious threats to pollute themselves by adoring the 
a Image, and are at length prepared to vindicate the pure worship of 
_ God, not only with their blood, but in defiance of a horrible tor- 
| ture set before their eyes. Thus the goodness of God shines forth 
at the close of this tragedy, and tends in no slight degree to arm us 
_ with invincible confidence. 
VOL. I. E 


* 
Z 








Ixvi CALVIN S DEDICATORY EPISTLE TO 


A similar contest and victory of Daniev himself will be added ; 
when he preferred to be cast among savage lions, to desisting from 
the open profession of his faith three times a-day; lest by perfi- 
dious dissembling he should prostitute the Sacred Name of God to 
the jests of the impious. Thus he was wonderfully drawn out of 
the pit which was all but his grave, and triumphed over Satan and 
his faction. Here philosophers do not come before us skilfully 
disputing about the virtues peacefully in the shade; but the inde- 
fatigable constancy of holy men in the pursuit of piety, invites us 
with a loud voice to imitate them. Therefore, unless we are alto- 
gether unteachable, we ought to learn from these masters, if Satan 
lays the snares of flattery for us, to be prudent and cautious that 
we are not entangled in them; and if he attacks us violently, to 
oppose all his assaults by a fearless contempt of death and of all 
evils. Should any one object, that the examples of either kind of 
deliverance which we have mentioned are rare, I confess indeed 
that God does not always stretch forth his hand from heaven in the 
same way to preserve his people ; but it ought to satisfy us that he 
has promised that he will be a faithful guardian of our life, as often 
as we are harassed by any trouble. We cannot be exposed to the 
power of the impious without his restraining their furious and tur- 
bulent plots against us, according to his pleasure. And we must 
not look at the results alone; but observe how courageously holy 
men devoted themselves to death for the vindication of God’s glory ; 
and although they were snatched away from it, yet their willing 
alacrity i in offering themselves as victims is in no degree less a 
serving of praise. ‘ ‘ 

It is also worth while to consider how variously the Prophet was 
tossed about and agitated during the Seventy years which he spent 
in exile. No King treated him so humanely as NEBUCHADNEZZAR, 
and yet he found him act like a wild beast. ‘The cruelty of others 
was greater, until after the sudden death of BetsnazzarR and the 
taking of the City, he was delivered up to its new masters, THE 
MepEs AND Persians. Their hostile irruption struck terror into 
the minds of all, and there is no doubt that the Prophet partook of 
the general feeling. Although he was kindly received by Darius, 
so that his slavery was rendered tolerable, yet the envy of the 
nobles and their wicked conspiracy against him subjected him to 
the greatest dangers. But he was more anxious for the common 
safety of the Church than for his own personal security. He evi- 
dently suffered the greatest grief, and was distracted with the utmost 











THE PIOUS PROTESTANTS OF FRANCE. Ixvil 


anxiety, when the position of affairs discovered no limit to so severe 
and miserable an oppression of the people. He acquiesced indeed, 
in the Prophecy of JerEm1aAn ; still it was a proof of his incom- 
parable forbearance that his hope, so long suspended, did not lan- 
guish ; nay, that when tossed hither and thither amidst tempestuous 
waves, it was not entirely drowned. 


Icome now to THE PROPHECIES themselves. The former part 
were uttered against THe BABYLONIANS; partly, becanse God 
wished to adorn his servants with sure testimonies, which might 
compel that most proud and victorious Nation to revere him; and 
partly, because His Name ought to be held in reverence with the 
profane. Thus he would exercise the prophetic gift among his 
own people more freely, through being endued with authority. 
After his name had become celebrated among THE CHALDEANS, 
God entrusted him with Prophecies of greater moment, which 
were peculiar to his elect people. Moreover, God so accommodated 
them to the use of his Ancient people, and they so soothed their 
sorrows by suitable remedies, and sustained their vacillating minds 
till rae ADVENT oF Curist—that they have no less value in our 
time; for whatever was predicted concerning the changing and 
vanishing splendour of these Monarchies, and the perpetual exist- 
ence of Christ’s Kingdom, is in these days no less useful to be 
known than formerly. For God shews how all earthly power which 
is not founded on Christ ‘must fall; and he threatens speedy de- 
struction to all Kingdoms which obscure Christ’s glory by extend- 
ing themselves too much. And those Kings whose sway is most 
extended shall feel by sorrowful experience how horrible a judg- 
ment will fall upon them, unless they willingly submit themselves 
to the sway of Christ! And what is less tolerable than to deprive 
Him of his right by whose protection their dignity remains safe ? 
And we see how few of their number admit rae son or Gop; nay, 
how they turn every stone and try every possible scheme to pre- 
vent his entrance into their territories! Many of their Council- 
lors studiously use their utmost endeavours and influence to close 
every avenue against him. For while they put forward the name 
of Christianity, and boast themselves to be the best defenders of 
the Catholic Faith, their frivolous vanity is easily refuted, if men 
hold the true and genuine definition of the Kingdom of Christ. 
For his throne or sceptre is nothing else but the doctrine of the 
Gospel. Nor does his Majesty shine elsewhere, nor his Empire 


“i 


Ixvill OALVIN’S DEDICATORY EPISTLE TO 


otherwise exist, than when all, from the highest to the lowest, hear 
His voice with the calm docility of sheep, and follow wherever he 
calls them. These Kings not only completely reject this doctrine, 
which contains the substance of True Religion, and the lawful 
Worship of God, in which the eternal salvation of men and their 
true happiness consists; but they drive it far away from them by 
threats and terrors, by the sword and flame, nor do they omit any 
violence in their efforts to exterminate it. How great, how pro- 
digious this blindness, when they cannot bear that those whom the 
only-begotten Son of God invites mercifully to himself should em- 
brace him! But many in their own pride, forsooth, think them- 
selves reduced to the common level, if they lower their ensigns of 
royalty to the Supreme King: others are unwilling to bridle their 
lusts, and since hypocrisy seizes on all their senses, they seek dark- 
ness, and dread to be dragged into light. No plague is worse than 
this fear, like Herod’s! as if he who offers a celestial empire to the 
least and most despised of the people, would snatch away the king- 
doms of the earth from its monarchs. In addition to this, when 
each regards the opinion of others, this mutual league retains them 
all bound in a distinctive bond under the yoke of impiety. For if 
they would seriously apply their minds to inquire what is true and 
right; nay, if they would only open their eyes, they could not fail 
to discover it. | 

Since it has often been found, by experience, that when Christ 
goes forth with his Gospel serious commotions arise, thus Kings 
have a plausible pretext for rejecting the heavenly doctrine by con- 
sulting for the public safety. I confess, indeed, that all change 
which occasions disturbance ought to be esteemed odious; but the 
injustice to God is great, unless this also is attributed to his power, 
that whatever tumults arise he allays them, and thus the kingdom 
of his Son is established ! “Although the heavens should mingle 
with the earth, the worship of God is so precious, that not even the 
least diminution of it can be compensated at any price. But those 
who pretend that the Gospel is the source of disturbances, accuse 
it falsely and unjustly. (Hag. ii. 7.) It is indeed true, that God 
thunders therein with the vehemence of His voice, which shakes 
heaven and earth; but while the Prophet gains attention to its 
preaching by this testimony, such concussion is to be wished for and 
expected. And, surely, if God’s glory did not shine forth in its 
own degree, until all flesh was humbled, it would be necessary that 
man’s pride should be humbled by the bold and strong hand of 











THE PIOUS PROTESTANTS OF FRANCE. lxix 


God; since that pride raises itself against him, and never yields of 
its own accord. But if the earth trembled at the promulgation of 
the Law, (Exod. xix. 18,) it is not surprising that the force and effi- 
cacy of the Gospel should appear more resplendent. Wherefore, 
it becomes us to embrace that consoling doctrine which raises the 
dead from the grave, and opens heaven, and implants unaccustomed 
vigour in those whom the earth is unworthy to sustain, as if all 
the elements were subservient to our salvation. 

But, lo! storms and tempests now flow from another fountain ! 
Because the Rulers and Governors of the world do not willingly 
submit to the yoke of Christ, now even the rude multitude reject 
what is salutary before they even taste it. Some delight themselves 
in filth, like pigs, and others excited by fury rejoice in slaughter. 
The devil instigates by especial fury those whom he has enslaved 
to himself to tumults of all sorts. Hence the clash of trumpets; 
hence conflicts and battles. Meanwhile, raz Roman PrRiIEst—a 
Heliogabalus—with his red and sanguinary cohorts and horned 
beasts,! rages with a hasty rush against Christ, and fetches from 
every side his allies from the filth of his foul Clergy,? all of whom 
sup the food on which they subsist from the same pot, though it be 
not equally dainty. Many hungry fellows also run up to offer their 
assistance. Most of the Judges are accustomed to gratify their ap- 
petites at these sumptuous banquets, and to fight for the kitchen 
and the kettle! and besides this, the haunts of the Monks,’ and the 
dens of the Sorbonne,‘ send forth their gluttons who add fuel to the 
flame. I omit the clandestine arts and wicked conspiracies of which 
my best witnesses are these notorious enemies to piety! I mention 
no one by name: it is enough to point with the finger to those who 
are too well known to you. In this confused assault of wild beasts, 
it is not surprising if those who depend only on the complicated 
events of things hesitate through perplexity, while they unjustly 
and unfairly throw the blame of their distrust upon the Sacred 
Gospel of Christ. Let us suppose that all the infernal regions with | 
their furies should offer us battle, will God sit at ease in heaven, 
and desert and betray his own cause? and when he has entered 
into the conflict, will either the crafty, cunning, or the impetuous 
rush of men deprive Him of his victory? 

Tuer Pops, they say, will draw with him a large faction—it is 
the just reward of unbelief to tremble at the sound of a falling leaf! 


? The Cardinals and Bishops. 2 The Romish priesthood. 
® The monasteries. * The Sorbonne was a Popish seminary 


Ixx CALVIN’S DEDICATORY EPISTLE TO 


(Lev. xxvi. 36.) Why, O ye counsellors, have ye so little fore- 
sight? Christ will take care that no novelty shall disturb you. 
In a short time ye will feel how far more satisfactory it is to have 
God propitious, to despise terrors as of no moment, and to rest in 
His protection, than to harass Him by open warfare, through fear of 
the wrath of the evil and the hypocritical. In truth, after all these 
discussions, the superstition which has hitherto reigned is with the 
defenders of the Pope, nothing else but well-placed evil,! and they 
think it cannot be removed, because the attempt would occasion 
irreparable damage. But those who regard the glory of God, and 
are endued with sincere piety, ought to have far higher objects in 
view, and so to submit themselves to the will of God as to approve 
of all the events of his providence. If he had not promised us 
anything, there might be just cause for fear and constant vacilla- 
tion; but since he has so often declared, that his help shall never 
be wanting in upholding the kingdom of his Christ, the reliance 
on this promise is the one sole basis of right action. 

Hence it is your duty, dearest brethren, as far as lies in your 
power, and your calling demands it, to use your hearty endeavours, 
that true religion may recover its perfect state. It is not necessary 
for me to relate how strenuously I have hitherto endeavoured to 
cut off all occasion for tumult; yea, I call you all with the angels 
to witness before the Supreme Judge of all men, that it is no fault 
of mine if the kingdom of Christ does not progress quietly without 
any injury. And I think it is owing to my carefulness that private 
persons have not transgressed beyond their bounds. Now, although 


God by his wonderful skill has carried forward the restoration of 


his Church further than I had dared to hope for, yet it is well to 


remember what Christ taught his disciples, namely, that they should ; 


possess their souls in patience. (Luke xxi. 19.) 


This is one object of the Vision which Danze has explained. 
The Stone by which those kingdoms were destroyed, which had 
made war on God, was not formed by the hand of man: and al- 
though it was rude and unpolished, yet it increased to a great 
mountain. I thought that ye required reminding of this, that ye 
may remain calm amidst the threatening thunders, while the empty 
clouds vanish away through being dispersed by heavenly agency. 


1 Latine, “imalum bene positum :” the French translation takes the phrase as 
a proverb—“ comme dit le proverb, un mal qui est bien en repos.” Anglice, “ well- 
poised.” 











hs. 
“" 


THE PIOUS PROTESTANTS OF FRANCE. Ixxi 


It does not escape me, while I pass by the numberless fires of thirty 
years, that ye have endured very great indignities during the last six 
months. How often in many places an irruption was made against 
you by a ferocious populace, and how often ye were attacked at 
one time by stones, and at another byswords! How your enemies 
plotted against you, and repressed your peaceful assemblies by 
sudden and unlooked for violence! How some were slain in their 
dwellings, and others by the wayside, while the bodies of your 
dead were dragged about as a laughing-stock, your women ravished, 
and many of your party wounded, and even the pregnant female 
with her offspring pierced through, and their homes ransacked and 
made desolate. But, although more atrocious things should be yet 
at hand, that ye may be approved as Christ’s disciples, and be 
wisely instructed in his school, you must use every effort, that no 
madness of the impious who act thus intemperately, should deprive 
you of that moderation by which alone they have thus far been 
conquered and broken down. And if the length of your affliction 
should cause you weariness, bear in mind that celebrated prophecy 
in which the Church’s condition is depicted to the life. God therein 
shews his Prophet what contests and anxieties, troubles and diffi- 
culties, awaited the Jews from the close of their exile, and from 
their joyful return to their country, until the advent of Christ. 
The similarity of the times adapts these predictions to ourselves, 
and fits them for our own use. Dantet congratulated the wretched 
Church which had so long been submerged in a deluge of evils, 
when he collected from the computation of the years, that the day 
of deliverance predicted by Jeremiah was at hand. (Jer. xxv. 12, 
and xxix. 10.) But he receives for an answer, that the lot of the 
people from the time of their permission to return would be more 
bitter, so that they would scarcely breathe again under a continual 
series of oppressive evils. With the bitterest grief, and with many 
sorrows, the people had dragged on in hope for seventy years, but 
now God increases the period sevenfold, and inwardly inflicts a 
deadly wound on their heart. He not only pronounces that the 
people, after their return home, should collect their strength and 
build their city and temple, and then suffer new anxieties, but he 
predicts fresh troubles amidst the very commencement of their joy, 
whilst they had scarcely tasted the sweetness of grace. ‘Then with 
regard to the calamities which shortly followed, the multiform ca- 
talogue here presented affrights us even who have only heard of 
them : then how bitter and how distressing were they to that rude 
nation! ‘To see the temple profaned by the audacity of a sacrile- 





Ixxul CALVIN $8 DEDICATORY EPISTLE TO 


gious tyrant, its sacred rites shamefully mingled with foul pollutions, 
all the books of the law cast into the fire, and the whole of the 
ceremonies abolished,—how horrible the spectacle! Since all who 
professed to persist boldly and constantly in the worship of God 
were seized and subjected to the same burning, how could the ten- 
der and weak behold this without the greatest consternation | 
Yet this was the tyrant’s plan, that the cruelty might excite the 
less earnest to deny their faith. Under the Maccabees, some re- 
laxation seems to have taken place, but yet such as is soon 
deformed by the most cruel slaughters, and was never without its 
share of lamentation and wo. For since the enemy far excelled 
them in forces and in every equipment for war, nothing was left 
for those who had taken up arms for the defence of the Church but 
to hide themselves in the dens of wild beasts, or to wander through 
the woods in the greatest distress, and in utter destitution. An- 
other source of temptation was added, since impious and abandoned 
men, in the boasting of a fallacious zeal, as DANIEL says, joined the 
party of Judas and his brethren, by which artifice of Satan infamy 
became attached to the band which Judas had collected, as if it 
had been a band of robbers. (Chap. xi. 34.) 

But nothing was a source of greater sorrow to the righteous, 
than to find the priests themselves betraying the temple and wor- 
ship of God, by wicked compacts according to the prompting of 
their interested ambition. For not only was that sacred dignity 
both bought and sold, but it was purchased by mutual murders 
and parricides. Hence it happened, that men of all ranks grew 
more and more profane, and corruptions multiplied everywhere 
with impunity, although circumcision and the sacrifices still re- 
mained in use, so that the expectation of the kingdom of God, 
when Christ appeared, was a strange and unheard of marvel. 
Very few, indeed, are entitled to even this praise. If then, in 
that unworthy deformity of the Church, if in the midst of its many 
dispersions and its dreadful terrors, of the devastation of the lands, 
the destruction of the dwellings, and the consequent dangers to 
life itself, this prophecy of DANIEL sustained the spirit of the pious, 
when the religious ceremonies were involved in obscure shadows, 
and doctrine was almost extinct, when the priests were most de- 
generate, and all sacred ordinances abolished,—how ashamed should 
we be of our cowardice, if the clearness of the Gospel, in which 
God shews to us his paternal face, does not raise us above all ob- 
stacles, and prop us up with unwearied constancy ? 

There is no doubt that the servants of God accommodated to 


uci a 
r 


THE PIOUS PROTESTANTS OF FRANCE. Ixxill 


their own times the predictions of this Prophet concerning the exile 

at Babylon, and thus lightened the pressure of present calamities. 

Thus, also, we ought to have our eyes fixed on the miseries of the 
Fathers, that we may not object to be joined with the body of that 
Church to which it was said, ‘ O, thou little flock, borne down by 

the tempest and deprived of comfort, behold, I take thee up.” 
Csaiah liv. 11.) And, again, after she has complained that her 

back had been torn by the ungodly, like a field cut up by the 
course of the furrows, yet she boasts immediately afterwards, that 

their cords were cut away by a just God, so that they did not 
prevail against her. (Psalm cxxix. 1-4.) The Prophet, then, not 

only animates us to hope and patience, by the example of those 
times, but adds an exhortation dictated by the Spirit, which ex- 

tends to the whole reign of Christ, and is applicable to us. Where- 

fore it is no hardship to us to be comprehended in the number 

of those whom he announces shall be proved and purified by 

fire, since the inestimable happiness and glory which springs 

from this process more than compensates for all its crosses and 
distresses. And although these things are insipid to the majority, 

lest their sloth and stupidity should render us too sluggish, we 
should fix deeply in our hearts the denunciation of the Prophets, 
namely, that the ungodly will act impiously, since they understand 
nothing; while the sons of God will be endued with wisdom to 

hold on the course of their divine calling. It is worth while, then, 

to perceive the origin of that gross blindness which is commonly 
observed, so that the heavenly doctrine may make us wise. 
Hence, it too often happens that the multitude revile Christ and 

his Gospel; they indulge themselves without either care, or fear, 

or any perception of their dangers, and they are not aroused by 
God’s wrath to an ardent and serious desire for that redemption 
which alone snatches us from the abyss of eternal destruction. 

In the meantime they are caught or rather fascinated by luxuries, 

$ pleasures, and other enticements, and pay no regard to the pros- 
____ pect of a happy eternity. Although there are many sects who 
___ contemptuously despise the teaching of the Gospel, some are re- 
__ markable for pride, others for imbecility, some for want of sobriety 
of mind, and others for a sleepy torpidity, yet we shall find that 
contempt flows from profane security, since no one descends into 
himself to shake off his own miseries, by finding aremedy for them. 
Yet, when God’s curse rests upon us, and his just vengeance urges 
us, it is the height of madness to cast aside all anxiety, and to 
please ourselves as if we need fear nothing. Yet it is a very com- 








d 
" 
a a 
= 
5 
z= 


i 
q 
7 





Ixxiv CALVIN’S DEDICATORY EPISTLE TO 


mon fault for those who are guilty of a thousand sins, and deserve a 
thousand eternal deaths, to discharge with levity a few frivolous 
ceremonies towards God, and then give themselves up to sloth 
and lethargy. Moreover, Paul denounces the savour of the Gos- 
pel (1 Cor. ii. 16) to be deadly towards all whose minds are fasci- 
nated by Satan ; so that to taste of its life-giving savour, it is ne- 
cessary for us to stand at God’s tribunal, and there also to cite our 
own consciences when wounded with serious terror, 

Thus, we esteem, according to its proper worth and value, that 
reconciliation which Christ procured for us by his precious blood. 
Thus, the angel, that he might acquire reverence and respect for 
Christ’s authority, brings a message concerning eternal justice 
which he sealed by the sucrifice of his death, and expresses the 
mode and plan by which iniquity was abolished and expiated. 
Thus, while the world revels in its lusts, let the knowledge of the 
condemnation which we have deserved inspire us with fear, and 
humble us before God: and while the profane involve themselves 
in the whirl of earthly gratifications, let us eagerly embrace this 
incomparable treasure, in which solid blessedness is laid up. Let 
our enemies jeer as they please, every man ought to take care to 
have God propitious to him, and it is clear that the very founda- 
tion of the faith is overthrown by those who think he is to be doubt- 
fully invoked. Let them deride our faith with as much petulance 
as they please, but let us be sure of this, that no one obtains this 
privilege except by God’s good gift, for men can only call God 
‘* Father” by relying on the advocacy of Christ, through a free 
and peaceful confidence. But the pursuit of piety will never 
flourish in us as it ought, until we learn to raise our minds upwards, 
since they are too inclined to grovel upon earth, and we should exer- 
cise them in continual meditation upon the heavenly life. And in 
this respect, the surprising vanity of the human race manifests 
itself, since though all speak eloquently, like philosophers, on the 
shortness of life, yet no one aspires to that perpetual existence. So 
that when Paul commends the faith and charity of the Colossians, 
he very truly says, that they were animated by a hope laid up in 
the heavens. (Col. i. 5.) And when discussing elsewhere the 
results of the grace which is open to us in Christ, he says—we 
must be so built up therein, that all impiety and worldly desires 
must be mortified, and we must live soberly, justly, and piously 
in this world, and wait for the blessed hope, and glorious advent 
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Tit. ii. 12, 13.) 

Let, then, this expectation free us from all hinderances, and draw 





VS SaaS = Ah agi ee 


= 








THE PIOUS PROTESTANTS OF FRANCE. Ixxv 


us towards itself, and though the world is steeped in more than epi- 
curean pollution, lest the contagion should reach us, we ought to 
strive the more earnestly until we arrive at the goal. Although it 
is truly a matter of grief, thatso great a multitude should wilfully 
perish, and rush devotedly on their own destruction, yet their fool- 
ish fury need not disturb us; for another admonition of DANIEL 
should succour us, namely, that certain salvation is laid up for all 
who have been found written in the book. But although our elec- 
tion is hidden in Ged’s secret counsel, which is the prime cause of 


our salvation, yet, since the adoption of all who are inserted into the 


body of Christ, by faith in the gospel, is by no means doubtful, be 
ye content with this testimony, and persevere in the course which 
ye have happily begun. But if ye must contend still longer, (and 
Iannounce, that contests more severe than ye contemplate yet 
remain for you,) by whatsoever attack the madness of the impious 
bursts forth, as if it stirred up the regions below, remember that 
your course has been defined by a heavenly Master of the contest, 
whose laws ye must obey the more cheerfully, since he will sup- 
ply you with strength unto the end. 


Since, then, it is not lawful for me to desert the station to which 
God has appointed me, I have DEDICATED to you this my labour, as 
a pledge of my desire to help you, until at the completion of my 
pilgrimage our heavenly Father, of his immeasurable pity, shall 
gather me together with you, to his eternal inheritance. 

May the Lorp govern you by His Spirit, may He defend my 
most beloved brethren by His own protection, against all the plots 
of their enemies, and sustain them by his invisible power. 


JOHN CALVIN. 
GENEVA, August 19, 1561. 





THE PRAYER 


WHICH JOHN CALVIN WAS ACCUSTOMED TO USE AT THE 
COMMENCEMENT OF HIS LECTURES. 


GRANT unto us, O Lorp, to be occupied in the mysteries 
of thy Heavenly wisdom, with true progress in piety, 
to thy glory and our own edification — AMEN. 


*,* This prayer is not inserted in the Geneva edition of 1617, but is 
found in that of 1571. The Frencn TRANSLATION renders it as follows :— 

“ May the Lord grant us grace so to treat the secrets of His celestial 
wisdom, that we may truly profit in the fear of His holy name, to His 
glory and to our edification. Amen.” 





FEATS Tera bec 


— 


COMMENTARIES 


ON 


THE PROPHET DANIEL 


JOHN CALVIN’S PREFACE 


TO HIS LECTURES ON DANIEL. 


Hecture First. 


THE Book or THE PropuEet Dantet follows these Remarks, 
and its utility will be better understood as we proceed ; since 


it cannot be conveniently explained all at once. I will, how- 


ever, just present the Reader with a foretaste to prepare his 
mind, and render him attentive. But before I do so, I must 
make a brief Summary oF THE Boox. We may divide the 
Book into two parts, and this partition will materially help 
us. For Danret relates how he acquired influence over the 
unbelieving. It was necessary for him to be elevated to the 
prophetic office in some singular and unusual manner. The 
condition of the Jews, as is well known, was so confused, 
that it was difficult for any one to determine whether any 
Prophet existed. At first JEREMIAH was alive, and after him 
Ezextent. After their return, the Jews had their own Pro- 
phets: but Jeremiah and Ezekiel had almost fulfilled their 
office, when Dante succeeded them. Others too, as we have 
already seen, as Haaear, Mauacui, and ZECHARIAH, were 
created Prophets for the purpose of exhorting the people, 
and hence their duties were partially restricted. But Danie. 
would scarcely have been considered a Prophet, had not God, 





Lard , . 
18 CALVIN 8 PREFACE LECT. I. 


as we have said, appointed him in a remarkable way. We 
shall perceive at the close of the sixth chapter, that he was 
divinely endued with remarkable signs, so that the Jews 
might surely ascertain that he had the gift of prophecy, un- 
less they were basely ungrateful to God. His name was 
known and respected by the inhabitants of Babylon. If the 
Jews had despised what even the profane Gentiles admired, 
was not this purposely to suffocate and trample on the grace 
of God? Dantet, then, had sure and striking marks by 
which he could be recognised as God’s Prophet, and his call- 
ing be rendered unquestionable. 

A Second Part is afterwards added, in which God predicts 
by his agency the events which were to occur to his elect 
people. The Visions, then, from the seventh chapter to the 
end of the Book, relate peculiarly to the Church of God. 
There God predicts what should happen hereafter. And 
that admonition is the more necessary, since the trial was 
severe, when the Jews had to bear an exile of seventy years ; 
but after their return to their country, instead of seventy 
years, God protracted their full deliverance till seventy 
weeks of years. So the delay was increased sevenfold. Their 
spirits might be broken a thousand times, or even utterly 
fail; for the Prophets speak so magnificently about their 
redemption, that the Jews expected their state to be espe- 
cially happy and prosperous, as soon as tliey were snatched 
from the Babylonish Captivity. But,since they were op- 
pressed with so many afflictions, and that, too, not for a 
short period, but for more than four hundred years, their 
redemption might seem illusory since they were but seventy 
years in exile. There is no doubt, then, that Satan seduced 
the minds of many to revolt, as if God were mocking them 
by bringing them out of Chaldea back again to their own 
country. For these reasons God shews his servant in a 
Vision what numerous and severe afflictions awaited his 
elect people. Besides, DantEL so prophesies that he describes 
almost historically events previously hidden. And this was 
necessary, since in such turbulent convulsions the people 
would never have tasted that these had been divinely re- 
vealed to Dantet, unless the heavenly testimony had been 





LECT, I. TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 79 


proved by the event. This holy man ought so to speak and 
to prophesy concerning futurity, as if he were relating what 
had already happened. But we shall see all these things in 
their own order. 

I return, then, to what I commenced with, that we may 
see in few words how useful this Book is to the Church of 
Christ. First of all, the matter itself shews how DanreL 
did not speak from his own discretion, but whatever he 
uttered was dictated by the Holy Spirit: for whence could 
he conceive the things which we shall afterwards behold, if 
he were only endued with human prudence ? for instance, 
that other Monarchies should arise to blot out that Babylo- 
nian Empire which then had the greatest authority in all 
the world? Then, again, how could he divine concerning 
Alexander the Great and his Successors? for long before 
Alexander was born, Danie predicted what he should ac- 
complish. ‘Then he shews that his kingdom should not last, 
since it is directly divided into four horns. Other events 
also clearly demonstrate that he spoke by the dictation of 
the Holy Spirit. But our confidence in this is strengthened 
by other narratives, where he represents the various miseries 
to which the Church should be subject between two most 
cruel enemies, the kings of Syria and Egypt. He first re- 
cites their treaties, and then their hostile incursions on both 
sides, and afterwards so many changes, as if he pointed at 
the things themselyes with his finger; and he so follows 
through their whole progress, that God appears to speak by 
his mouth. This, then, is a great step, and we shall not re- 
pent of taking it, when we acknowledge Dantzt to have been 
only the organ of the Holy Spirit, and never to have brought 
anything forward by his own private inclination. The au- 
thority, too, which he obtained, and which inspired the Jews 
with perfect confidence in his teaching, extends to us also. 
Shameful, indeed, and base would be our ingratitude, if we 
did not embrace him as God’s Prophet, whom the Chaldeans 
were compelled to honour—a people whom we know to have 
been superstitious and fuil of pride. These two nations, the 
Egyptians and Chaldeans, placed themselves before all others; 
for the Chaldeans thought wisdom’s only dwelling-place 






80 CALVIN’S PREFACE LECT. I. 
was with themselves: hence they would never have been 
inclined to receive Danrzx, unless the reality had compelled 
them, and the confession of his being a true prophet of God _ 
had been extorted from them. 

Since Danret’s authority is thus established, we must now 
say a few words about the subjects which he treats. Re- 
specting THE INTERPRETATION OF THE Dreams, the first of | 
those of Nebuchadnezzar embraces a matter of great import- 
ance,as we shall see, namely, how all the splendour and power 
of the world vanish away, Christ’s kingdom alone remain- — 
ing stable, and that nothing else is self-enduring. Inthe 
Second Dream of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniex’s admirable con- 
stancy is displayed. Very invidious, indeed, was the office — 
of throwing down the mightiest Monarch of the whole world 
as he did: ‘‘ Thou exceptest thyself fromthe number of men, 
and art worshipped like a god; thou shalt hereafter become — 
a beast!” No man of these days would dare thus to address 
Monarchs ; nay, who dares to admonish them even mildly, — 
if they have sinned at all? When, therefore, Danren intre- 
pidly predicted to King Nebuchadnezzar the disgrace which 
awaited him, he thus gave a rare and memorable proof — 
of his constancy. And in this way, again, his calling was” 
sealed, since this fortitude sprang from God’s Spirit. 

But the Second Part is peculiarly worthy of notice, since we 
there perceive how Godcares for his Church. God’s providence _ 
is, indeed, extended to the whole world. For if a sparrow 
does not fall to the ground without his permission, he, doubt- 
less, is mindful of the human race! (Matt. x., and Luke xii.) 4 
Nothing, therefore, happens to us by chance, but God in this 
Book affords us light, while we know his Church to beso 








governed by him, as to be the object of his peculiar care. 
If matters ever were so disturbed in the world, that one could 
suppose God to be asleep in heaven, and to be forgetful of _ 
the human race, surely such were the changes of those times, _ 
nay, so multiform, so extensive, and so various. were they, 
that even the most daring must be confounded, since there 
was no end to the wars. Egypt prevailed at one time, 
while at another there were commotions in Syria. See- 
ing, then, all things turned up-side down, what judgment 


ee te 


LECT. I. TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL, 81 


could be passed, except that God neglected the world, 
and the Jews were miserably deceived in their hope? They 
thought that as God had been their deliverer, so would 
he have been the perpetual guardian of their safety. Al- 
though all nations were then subject in common to various 
slaughters, yet if the Syrians were victorious over the 
Egyptians, they abused their power against the Jews, and 
Jerusalem lay exposed as their prey, and the reward of their 
victory: if, again, the opposite side were the conquerors, 
they revenged the injury, or sought compensation against 
the Jews. Thus on every side those miserable people were 
fleeced, and their condition was much worse after their 
return to their country, than if they had always been exiles 
or strangers in other regions. When, therefore, they were 
admonished concerning the future, this was the best prop 
on which they could repose. But the use of the same doc- 
trine is at this day applicable to us. We perceive, as in a 
glass or picture, how God was anxious about his Church, 
even when he seemed to cast away all regard for it: hence 
when the Jews were exposed to the injuries of their enemies, 
it was but the accomplishment of his designs. 

From the Second Part we recognise their wonderful 
preservation, and that too, by a greater and more surpris- 
ing exercise of God’s power, than if they had lived in 
peace, and no one had molested them. We learn this from 
the seventh to the ninth chapters. Now, when Dayien 
numbers the years till Toe Apvenr of Curist, how clear 
and distinct is the testimony which we may oppose against 
Satan, and all the taunts of the impious! and how certain 
itis that the Book of Daniet was familiarly used by men 
before this event. But when he enumerates THE SEVENTY 
WEEKS, and says, that Christ should then come, all profane 
men may come, and boast, and swell with increased swag- 
gering, yet they shall fall down convicted, since Christ is that 
true Redeemer whom God had promised from the begin- 
ning of the world. For He was unwilling to make him 
known without the most certain demonstration, such as all 
the mathematicians can never equal. First of all, it is 
worthy of observation, that Daniet afterwards discoursed 

VOL. I. F 


— 


82 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. I. 


on the various calamities of the Church, and prophesied 
the time at which God pleased to shew his only-begotten 
Son to the world. His dissertation on the office of Christ is 
one of the principal supports of our faith. For he not only 
describes his Advent, but announces the abolition of the 
shadows of the Law, since the Messiah would bring with 
him its complete fulfilment. And when he predicts the 
Death of Christ, he shews for what purpose he should under- 
go death, namely, to abolish Sin by his sacrifice, and to 
bring in Eternal Righteousness. Lastly, this also must be 
noticed,—as he had instructed the people to bear their 
cross, so also he warns them that the Church’s state would 
not be tranquil even when the Messiah came. The sons of 
God should be militant until the end, and not hope for any 
fruit of their victory until the dead should rise again, and 
Christ himself should collect us into his own Celestial King- 
dom. Now, we comprehend in few words, or rather only 
taste how useful and fruitful this Book is to us. 

I now come to the words themselves: I wished, as I 








said, just to catch a foretaste of a few things, and the read- — 


ing of the Book will shew us better what advantage we may 
derive from each of its chapters. 


CHAPTER FIRST. 


1. Inthe third year of the reign of | 1. Anno tertio regni Jehoiakim ~ 


Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebu- regis Jehudah venit Nebuchad- 
chadnezzar king of Babylon unto Je- nezzar rex Jerosolyma Babylonis, 
rusalem, and besieged it. et obsedit eam. 

2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim 2. Et tradidit Deus in manum 
king of Judah into his hand, with part regis Jehoiakim Regem Jehuda, 
of the vessels of the house of God,which et partem vasorum domus Dei, et 
he carried into thelandofShinar,tothe traduxit ea! in terram Sinear in 
house of his god; andhebroughttheves- domum dei sui? quod vasa posuerit 
sels into the treasure-house of hisGod. in domo thesauri dei sul. 


These are not two different things, but the Prophet ex- 


1 Or eos. Either may be read; for the Hebrews do not use the neuter 
gender; yet I had rather use the neuter gender, on account of what follows. 
—Calvin. 

* 'This would not suit either the king or the captives: hence the Pro- 
phet seems to speak of “vessels ;” and a repetition of the same sentence 
afterwards follows.—Calvin. 











' CHAP. I. 1, 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 83 


plains and confirms the same sentiments by a change of 
phrase, and says that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had 
brought into the land of Sinaar were laid up in the house of 
the treasury. The Hebrews, as we know, generally use the 
word “ house” for any place, as they call the temple God’s 
“house.” Of the land of Sinaar, it must be remarked, that 
it was a plain adjacent to Babylon ; and the famous temple 
of Belus, to which the Prophet very probably refers, was 
erected there. 

Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into cap- 
tivity together with his companions, namely, in the third 
year of Jehoiakim. A difficult question arises here, since 
Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth year of Je- 
hoiakim. How then could he have besieged Jerusalem 
in the third year, and then led away the people captives 
according to his pleasure? Some interpreters solve this 
difficulty by what appears to me a frivolous conjecture, that 
the four years ought to refer to the beginning of his reign, 

and so the time may be brought within the third year. 
But in the second chapter we shall see Daniel brought 
before the king in the second year of his reign. They 
explain this difficulty also by another solution. They say 
—the years are not reckoned from the beginning of the 
reign, and,—this was the second year from the Conquest 
of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too 
harsh and forced. The most probable conjecture seems to me, 
that the Prophet is speaking of the first King Nebuchadnezzar, 
or at least uses the reign of the second, while his father 
was yet alive. We know there were two kings of the 
same name, father and son; and as the son did many noble 
and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname of Great. 
Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards meet with concern- 
ing Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be understood except of the 
second, who is the son. But Josephus says the son was 
sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews: 
and this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often 
urged the Jews to a change of affairs, and enticed them to 
throw off the yoke. Nebuchadnezzar the younger was car- 
rying on the war in Egypt at the death of his father, and 





84 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOL IL 


speedily returned home, lest any one should supersede him, 
When, however, he found all things as he wished, Josephus 
thinks he put off that expedition, and went to Jerusalem. 
There is nothing strange, nay, it is very customary to call 
him King who shares the command with his father. Thus, 
therefore, I interpret it: In the third year of the reign of 
Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and 
direction of his father, or if any one prefers it, the father 


himself came. For there is nothing out of place, whether — 


we refer it to the father or tothe son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, 
king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem, that is, by the hand 
of his son besieged Jerusalem. But if a different explana- 
tion is preferred, since he was there himself and carried on 
the war in person, that view may be taken: still, the events 
happened in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. Interpre- 
ters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus, indeed, 
says this was done in the eighth year, but he had never 
read the Book of Daniel! He was an unlearned man, 
and by no means familiar with the Scriptures ; nay, I think 
he had never read three verses of Daniel. It was a 
dreadful judgment of God fora priest to be so ignorant a 
man as Josephus. But in another passage on which I 
have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and 
others whom he cites, when speaking of the destruction of 
that monarchy. And this seems to suit well enough, since 
in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city was once 
taken, and some of the nobles of the royal race were led 
away in triumph, among whom were Daniel and his compa- 
nions. When Jehoiakim afterwards rebelled, his treat- 
ment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But 
while Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of 
King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was already a captive, so that 
Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled—the condition of the 
figs prematurely ripe was improved; for those who were 


1 Calvin’s expression is tam brutus homo in Latin, and si stwpide et 
brutal in French ; but he is evidently too severe on so valuable an annal- 
ist, who, in so many passages, confirms and elucidates the scriptural nar- 
rative. Besides, Calvin seems to have overlooked the passage in his Antiq., 
lib. xi. cap. 8, § 5, where this Book is mentioned, and its contents alluded 
to at length. 





CHAP.I. 1, 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 85 


led into exile last thought themselves better off than the 
rest. But the Prophet deprives them of their vain boast, and 
shews the former captives to have been better treated than 
the remnant of the people who as yet remained safe at home. 
(Jer. xxiv. 2,8.) I assume, then, that Daniel was among 
the first fruits of the captivity ; and this is an instance of 
God’s judgments being so incomprehensible by us. For 
had there been any integrity in the whole people, surely 
Daniel was a remarkable example of it: for Ezexren in- 
cludes him among the three just men by whom most pro- 
bably God would be appeased. (Chap. xiv. 14.) Such, 
then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues, that he was like 
a celestial angel among mortals ; and yet he was led into 
exile, and lived as the slave of the king of Babylon. Others, 
again, who had provoked God’s wrath in so many ways, 
remained quiet in their nests: the Lord did not deprive 
them of their country and of that inheritance which was a 
sign and pledge of their adoption.” 

Should any wish here to determine why DanizL was among 
the first to be led into captivity, will he not betray his folly ? 
Hence, let us learn to admire God’s judgments, which sur- 
pass all our perceptions ; and let us also remember the_ 
words of Christ, “If these things are done in the green 
tree, what will be done in the dry?” (Luke xxiii. 31.) AsI 
have already said, there was an angelic holiness in Daniel, 
although so ignominiously exiled and brought up among 
the king’s eunuchs. When this happened to so holy a man, 
who from his childhood was entirely devoted to piety, how 
great is God’s indulgence in sparing us? What have we 
deserved ? Which of us will dare to compare himself with 
Daniel? Nay, we are unworthy, according to the ancient 
proverb, to loosen the tie of his shoes. Without the slight- 
est doubt Daniel, through the circumstances of the time, 


1 Much light has been thrown upon the chronology of these times since 
the age of Calvin: later Commentators have dated from the third year of 
Jehoiakim’s restoration to his kingdom after his rebellion. See 2 Kings 
xxiv. 2, 3. The subject is discussed with clearness by Bleek in his Theo- 
log. Zeitschrist. Pt. ii. p. 280, &. ; and R. Sal. Jarchi on this passage may 
be consulted, p. 735, edit. Gothe, 1713. See Dissertation I. at the end 
of this Volume. 






86 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT, I. 


wished to manifest the singular and extraordinary gift of 
God, since this trial did not oppress his mind and could 
not turn him aside from the right course of piety. When, 
therefore, Daniel saw himself put forward as an example 
of integrity, he did not desist from the pure worship of 
God. As to his assertion that Jehoiakim was delivered 
into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar by God’s command, 
this form of speech takes away any stumblingblock which 
might occur to the minds of the pious. Had Nebuchadnezzar 
been altogether superior, God himself might seem to have 
ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been depressed. 
But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not 
possess Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation 
by his own valour, or counsel, or fortune, or good luck, but 
because God wished to humble his people. Therefore, 
Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of 
God, that we may not think Jerusalem to have been taken 
in violation of God’s promise to Abraham and his posterity. 
He also speaks by name of the vessels of the temple. 
Now, this might seem altogether out of place, and would 
shock the minds of the faithful. For what does it mean ? 
That God’s temple was spoiled by a wicked and impious 
man. Had not God borne witness that his rest was there? 
This shall be my rest for ever: here will I dwell because 


I have chosen it. (Ps. exxxii. 14.) If any place in the 


world were impregnable, here truly honour ought to re- 
main entire and untainted in the temple of God. When, 
therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, 
and when an impious king had also transferred to the 
temple of his own god what had been dedicated to the 
living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as 
this cast down the minds of the holy? No one was 
surely so stout-hearted whom that unexpected trial would 
not oppress. Where is God, if he does not defend his own 
temple? Although he does not dwell in this world, and 
is not enclosed in walls of either wood or stone, yet he 
chose this dwelling-place for himself, (Ps. xxx. 1, and xcix. 1, 
and Isa. xxxvii. 16,) and often by means of his Prophets 
asserted his seat to be between the Cherubim. What then 








CHAP. I. 3. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 87 


is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel 
recalls us to the judgment of God, and by a single word 
assures us that we ought not to be surprised at God inflicting 
such severe punishments upon impious and wicked apostates. 
For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis ; 
as the Lord did not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the 
Babylonians without just reason: God, therefore, exposed 
him as a prey that he might punish him for the revolt of his 
impious people. It now foliows:— 


3. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz, 3. Et mandavit! Rex Aspe- 
the master of his eunuchs, that heshould nazo? principi eunuchorum, ut 
bring certain of the children of Israel, educeret e filiis Israel et ex se- 
and of the king’s seed,and of the princes. mine regio, et ex principibus.® 


Here Daniel pursues his narrative, and shews the manner 
in which he was led away together with his companions. 
The king had demanded young men to be brought, not from 
the ordinary multitude, but from the principal nobility, 
who stood before him, that is, ministered to him. Hence, 
we ascertain why Daniel and his companions were chosen, 
because they were noble young men and of the royal seed, 
or at least of parents who surpassed others in rank. The 
king did this purposely to shew himselfa conqueror; he 
may also have taken this plan designedly, to retain hos- 
tages in his power; for he hoped, as we shall see, that 
those who were nourished in his palace would be degenerate 
and hostile to the Jews, and he thought their assistance 
would prove useful to himself. He also hoped, since they 
were born of a novle stock, that the Jews would be the more 
peaceable, and thus avoid all danger to those wretched exiles 
who were relations of the kings and the nobles. With regard 
to the words, he calls this Aspenaz the prince of eunuchs, 
under which name he means the boys who were nourished 
in the king’s palace to become a seminary of nobles; for 
it is scarcely possible that this Aspenaz was set over other 
leaders. But we gather from this place, that the boys 


? Or, declared.— Calvin. 
Or, said to Aspenaz, as those who retain the Hebrew phrase trans- 


late it.— Calvin. 
8 Or, elders.—Calvin. 






88 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, Io 


whom the king held in honour and regard were under his 
custody. The Hebrews call eunuchs D’D'D, serisim, a name 
which belongs to certain prefects; for Potiphar is called by 
this name though he had a wife. So this name is every- 
where used in Scripture for the satraps of a king; (Gen. 
xxxvii. 386; xl. 2, 7;) but since satraps also were cho- 
sen from noble boys, they were probably called eunuchs, 
though they were not made so, yet Josephus ignorantly 
declares these Jewish children to have been made eunuchs. 
But when eunuchs existed among the luxuries of Oriental 
kings, as I have already said, those youths were commonly 
called by this name whom the king brought up as a kind 
of school of nobles, whom he might afterwards place over 
various provinces. 

The king, therefore, commanded some of the children of 
Israel of the royal seed and of the nobles to be brought to him. 
So the sentence ought to be resolved ; he did not command 
any of the common people to be brought to him, but some of 
the royal race, the more plainly to shew himself their 
conqueror by doing all things according to his will. He 
means those “elders” who yet were in chief authority 
under the king of Judah. And Daniel also was of that 
tribe, as we shall afterwards see. The word DONS, pharth- 
mim, “princes,” is thought to be derived from Perah, 
which is the Euphrates, and the interpreters understand 
prefects, to whom the provinces on the banks of the Euphra- 
tes were committed; but this does not suit the present 
passage where Jews are treated of. We now see the ge- 


neral signification of this name, and that all the elders ought. 


to be comprehended under it.'—The rest to-morrow. 


1 This word has caused great difference of opinion among commentators. 
Theodotion does not attempt to explain it. Symmachus takes it for the 
Parthians. Jerome interprets it by tyranni, and Saadias by their off- 
spring. Aben-Ezra considers it a foreign word; and R. Salom. Jarchi calls 
it Persian, and translates it “leaders.” Hottinger and Aug. Pfeiffer both 
treat it as Persian, but derive it from different roots. “Nobles” or 
“elders” seems its best English equivalent. 


‘ 
j 
2 
4 
} 
| 
| 
' 





slain 
ca 
i an 


i? 


CHAP. I. 4. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 89 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since thou settest before us so clear a mir- 
ror of thy wonderful providence and of thy judgments on thine 
ancient people, that we may also be surely persuaded of our 
being under thy hand and protection :—Grant, that relying on thee, 
we may hope for thy guardianship, whatever may happen, since 
thou never losest sight of our safety, so that we may invoke thee 
with a secure and tranquil mind. May we so fearlessly wait for 
all dangers amidst all the changes of this world, that we may 
stand upon the foundation of thy word which never can fail; 
and leaning on thy promises may we repose on Christ, to whom 
thou hast committed us, and whom thou hast made the shepherd 
of all thy flock. Grant that he may be so careful of us as to 
lead us through this course of warfare, however troublesome and 
turbulent it may prove, until we arrive at that heavenly rest 
which he has purchased for us by his own blood.—Amen. 


Lecture Second. 


4, Children in whom was no blem- 4. Pueros, quibus nulla esset 
ish, but well-favoured, and skilful macula’ et pulchros aspectu,? et in- 
in all wisdom, and cunning in know- telligentes in omni prudentia,® et 
ledge, and understanding science, and intelligentes scientiam, et diserte 
such as had ability in them to stand exprimentes cognitionem, et in 
in the king’s palace, and whom they. quibus vigor, ut starent in palatio 
might teach the learning and the regis,et ad docendum ipsos literatu- 
tongue of the Chaldeans. ram et linguam Chaldzorum. 


In yesterday’s Lecture we saw how the prefect or master 
of the eunuchs was commanded to bring up some noble 
youths, the offspring of the king and the elders ; and Daniel 
now describes their qualities, according to Nebuchadnezzar’s 
order. They were youths, not so young as seven or eight 
years, but growing up, in whom there was no spot; that is, in 
whom there was no defect or unsoundness of body. They 
were also of beautiful aspect, meaning of ingenuous and 
open countenance: he adds also, skilled in all prudence, and 
understanding knowledge; and then, expressing theirthoughts. 
I think those interpreters right who take this participle 


‘Por I omit the Hebraism which has already been explained.—Calvin. 
* Or countenance.—Calvin. * That is, skilled in all wisdom.—Calvin. 






90 COMMENTARIES ON DANTEL, LEOT. Il. 


actively, otherwise the repetition would be cold and value- 
less. Their eloquence seems to me pointed out here ; 
because there are some who inwardly understand subjects 
presented to them, but cannot express to others what they 
retain in their minds; for all have not the same dexterity 
in expressing exactly what they think. Daniel, therefore, 
notices both qualifications here—the acquisition of know- 
ledge, and the power of communicating it. 

And in whom was vigour : for M3, cach, usually signifies 
fortitude, as in Isaiah. (Chap. xl. 9.) Those who fear God 
shall change their fortitude, or renew their vigour. Then in 
Psalm xxii., (ver. 15,) “my strength or vigour has failed.” He 
adds, the fortitude or vigour of intelligence, knowledge, and 
eloquence ; or a healthy habit of body, which is the same 
thing." That they might stand in the king's palace, and be 
taught literature, (I cannot translate the particle 5D, sepher, 
otherwise: verbally it is a “letter,” but it means learning 
or discipline,) and the language of the Chaldees. We now 
see how the king regarded not only their rank, when he 
ordered the most excellent of the royal and noble children 
to be brought to him; but he exercised his choice that 
those who were to be his servants should be clever; 
they were of high birth, as the phrase is; so they ought 
to prevail in eloquence and give hopeful promise of general 
excellence in both body and mind. Without doubt he 
wished them to be held in great estimation, that he might 
win over other Jews also. Thus, if they afterwards obtained 
authority, should circumstances allow of it, they might 
become rulers in Judea, bearing sway over their own people, 
and yet remain attached to the Babylonian empire. This 
was the king’s design ; it affords no reason why we should 
praise his liberality, since it is sufficiently apparent that 
he consulted nothing but his own advantage. 

Meanwhile, we observe, that learning and the liberal arts 
were not then so despised as they are in this age, and 

1 It can searcely be correct to confound bodily with mental endowments. 
Wintle explains the three clauses very appositely, referring the first to 
“excellent natural abilities,” the second to “the greatest improvement 


from cultivation,” and the last to “ the communication of our perceptions 
in the happiest manner to others.” 





——_ 








CHAP. I. 4. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 91 


in those immediately preceding it. So strongly has bar- 
barism prevailed in the world, that it is almost disgrace- 
ful for nobles to be reckoned among the men of education 
and of letters! The chief boast of the nobility was to be 
destitute of scholarship—nay, they gloried in the assertion, 
that they were “no scholars,” in the language of the day ; 
and if any of their rank were versed in literature, they 
acquired their attainments for no other purpose than to be 
made bishops and abbots: still, as I have said, they gene- 
rally despised all literature. We perceive the age in which 
Daniel lived was not so barbarous, for the king wished to 
have these boys whom he caused to be so instructed, among 
his own princes, as we have said, to promote his own advan- 
tage ; still we must remark upon the habit of that age. As 
to his requiring so much knowledge and skill, it may seem 
out of place, and more than their tender age admitted, that 
they should be so accomplished in prudence, knowledge, and 
experience. But we know that kings require nothing in 
moderation: when they order anything to be prepared, they 
often ascend beyond the clouds. So Nebuchadnezzar speaks _ 
here; and Daniel, who relates his commands, does so 
in a royal manner. Since the king commanded all the 
most accomplished to be brought before him, if they really 
manifested any remarkable qualities, we need not be sur- 
prised at their knowledge, -skill, and prudence. The 
king simply wished those boys and youths to be brought 
to him who were ingenious and dexterous, and adapted 
to learn with rapidity ; and then those who were naturally 
eloquent and of a healthy constitution of body. For it follows 
directly, that they might learn or be taught the literature and 
language of the Chaldees. We perceive that King Nebu- 
chadnezzar did not demand teachers, but boys of high birth, 
and good talents, and of promising abilities; he wished 
them to be liberally instructed in the doctrine of the Chal- 


dees: he was unwilling to have youths of merely polished 


and cultivated minds without natural abilities. His desire 
to have them acquainted with the language of Chaldea arose 
from his wish to separate them by degrees from their own 
nation, to induce them to forget their Jewish birth, and to 






92 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, IT. 


acquire the Chaldean manners, since language is a singular — 
bond of communication. Respecting their learning, we 
may ask, whether Daniel and his companions were per- — 
mitted to learn arts full of imposition, which we know to — 
be the nature of the Chaldean learning. For they pro- — 
fessed to know every one’s fate, as in these days there are — 
many impostors in the world, who are called fortune- — 
tellers. They abused an honourable name when they called — 
themselves mathematicians, as if there were no scientific — 
learning separate from those arts and diabolic illusions. — 
And as to the use of the word, the Cesars, in their laws, 
unite Chaldeans and mathematicians, treating them as syno- — 
nymous. But the explanation is easy,—the Chaldeans not — 
only pursued that astrology which is called “ Judicial,” — 
but were also skilled in the true and genuine knowledge 
of the stars. The ancients say, that the course of the stars 
was observed by the Chaldeans, as there was no region | 
of the world so full of them, and none possessed so ex- 
tensive an horizon on all sides. As the Chaldeans en- 
joyed this advantage of having the heavens so fully exposed 
to the contemplation of man, this may have led to their 
study, and have conduced to the more earnest pursuit of © 
astrology. But as the minds of men are inclined to vain 
and foolish curiosity, they were not content with legitimate 
science, but fell into foolish and perverse imaginations. For 
what fortune-tellers predict of any one’s destiny is merely 
foolish fanaticism. Daniel, therefore, might have learned 
these arts ; that is, astrology and other liberal sciences, just 
as Moses is said to have been instructed in all the sciences 
of Egypt. We know how the Egyptians were infected with 
similar corruptions ; but it is said both of Moses and of our 
Prophet, that they were imbued with a knowledge of the stars 
and of the other liberal sciences. Although it is uncertain 
whether the king commanded them to proceed far in these 
studies, yet we must hold that Daniel abstained, as we shall 
see directly, from the royal food and drink, and was not 
drawn aside nor involved in these Satanic impostures. 
Whatever the king’s commandment was, I suppose Daniel 
to have been content with the pure and genuine knowledge 








ib 





CHAP. I. 5. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 93 


of natural things. As far as the king is concerned, as we 
have already said, he consulted simply his own interests ; 
wishing Daniel and his companions to pass over into a 
foreign tribe, and to be drawn away from their own people, 
as if they had been natives of Chaldea. It now follows :— 

5. And the king appointed them a 5. Et constituit illis rex demen- 
daily provision of the king’s meat, and sum diei in die suo! ex frusto? 
of the wine which he drank: sonour- cibi regis, et ex vino potus ejus. 
ishing them three years, that at the Et ut educarentur annis tribus: et 
end thereof they might stand before a fine Ulorum® starent coram 
the king. rege. 

In this verse, Daniel shews that the king had ordered 
some youths to be brought to him from Judea, and to be so 
nourished as to be intoxicated with delicacies, and thus ren- 
dered forgetful of their own nation. For we know that 
wherever there is any cunning in the world, it reigns espe- 
cially in kings’ palaces! So Nebuchadnezzar, when he per- 
ceived he was dealing with an obstinate people, (and we know 
the Jews to have been of a hard and unsubdued spirit,) 
wished to acquire servants spontaneously obedient, and thus 
endeavoured to soften them with luxuries. This was the 
reason why he provided for them an allotment of his own 
meat and drink ; as at present it is the greatest honour at 
princes’ tables to be served with a bon-bouche, as they say. 
Nebuchadnezzar wished this Daniel and his companions, 
though but captives and exiles, to be brought up not only 
splendidly but royally, as if of the royal race. Through his 
right of conquest he had drawn them away violently from 
their country, as we said yesterday. Hence he does not 
act thus from any feeling of liberality, and his feeding those 
miserable exiles from his own table should not be esteemed 
a virtuous action ; but, as we have said, he cleverly recon- 
ciles the minds of the boys to be reckoned Chaldeans rather 
than Jews, and thus to deny their own race. ‘This, then, 
was the king’s intention ; but we shall see how God governed 


1 435, deber, “ the matter,” for each day.—Calvin. “ The allotment 
for each day.”—Wintle. It means “ daily bread,” as in our Lord’s Prayer, 
and occurs often in Exodus. 

® Verbally, it here signifies a portion.— Calvin. 

® Some translate it “ apart,” meaning “ some part of them,” but there 
is no doubt that the Prophet means a space of time, as we shall soon see. 
—Calvin. : 


9 4 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT, I. 





2 


= 
} 
d 


Daniel and his companions by His Spirit, and how they — 


became aware of these snares of the devil, and abstained 
from the royal diet, lest they should become polluted by it. 
This point will hereafter be treated in its place—we are 
now only commenting on the craftiness of the king. He 
commanded a daily portion of diet to be distributed to 
them, not that the spirit of parsimony dictated this daily 
portion, but the king wished their food should be exactly 
the same as his own and that of the chiefs. 

He adds, that they should be educated for three years; mean- 
ing, until they were thoroughly skilled in both the language 
and knowledge of the Chaldeans. Three years were sufii- 
cient for both these objects, since he had selected youths of 
sufficient talent to learn with ease both languages and 
sciences. As they were endued with such capacity, it is 
not surprising that the space of three years had been pre- 
scribed by the king. At length, he says, at the end of them, 
meaning of the three years. We have shewn how this ought 
not to be referred to the boys, as if the king afterwards 
selected some of them, for we shall see in its own place that 
a distinct time was fixed beforehand; hence no long refu- 
tation is needed. It is certain, then, that the Prophet 
speaks of the close of the three years. It had been said just 
before, that they might stand in the palace ; but this ought 


also to be understood of the time of which mention has been. 


made. They did not stand before the king immediately, 
but were reserved for this purpose. Since the king com- 
manded them to be brought up for the purpose of using 
their services afterwards. Daniel twice repeats—they 
were splendidly educated—seeing the king wished them to 
become his servants at table and in other duties. 


6. Now among these were, of the 6. Et fuit in illis ex filiis Je- 
children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, hudah Daniel, Hananiah, Mi- 
Mishael, and Azariah ; sael, et Azariah. 

7. Unto whom the prince of the eu- 7. Et imposuit illis prineeps 
nuchs gave names: for he gave unto eunuchorum! nomina: imposuit 
Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to inquam, Danieli Balthsazar, et 
Hananiah. of Shadrach ; and to Mishael, Hananiz Sadrak, et Misael 
of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed- Mesack, et Azarie Abedne- 
nego. go. 


1 That is, the master of the eunuchs.—Calvin. 





ak 2 - 








ie Sa Sew, ae pt ES een 


cap. I. 6, 7. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, 95 


The Prophet now comes to what properly belongs to 
his purpose. .He did not propose to write a full narrative, 
but he touched shortly on what was necessary, to inform 
us how God prepared him for the subsequent discharge 
of the prophetic office. After he had stated their selec- 
tion from the royal and noble seed, as excelling in talent, 
dexterity, and eloquence, as well as in vigour of body, he 
now adds, that he and his companions were among them. 
He leaves out the rest, because he had nothing to record of 
them worthy of mention ; and, as I have said, the narrative 
hitherto is only subsidiary. The Prophet’s object, then, 
must be noticed, since he was exiled, and educated royally 
and sumptuously in the palace of King Nebuchadnezzar, 
that he might afterwards be one of the prefects, and his 
companions be elevated to the same rank. He does not 
say that he was of the royal house, but only of the tribe 
of Judah ; but he was probably born of a noble rather than 
of a plebeian family, since kings more commonly selected 
their prefects from their own relations than from others. 
Moreover, since the kingdom of Israel was cut off, perhaps 
through a feeling of modesty, Daniel did not record his 
family, nor openly assert his origin from a noble and 
celebrated stock. He was content with a single word,— 
he and his companions were of the tribe of Judah, and 
brought up among the children of the nobility. He says 
—their names were changed ; so that by all means the 
king might blot out of their hearts the remembrance of their 
own race, and they might forget their own origin. As far 
as interpretations are concerned, I think I have said enough 
to satisfy you, as I am not willingly curious in names where 
there is any obscurity, and especially in these Chaldee 
words. As to the Hebrew names, we know Daniel’s name 
to mean the judge, or judgment of God. Therefore, whether 
by the secret instinct of God, his parents had imposed’ 
this name, or whether by common custom, Daniel was call- 
ed by this name, as God’s judge. So also of the rest ; 
for Hananiah has a fixed meaning, namely, one who has 
obtained mercy from God; so Misael means required or 
demanded by God; and so Azariah, the help of God, or one 





96 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. II. 


whom God helps. But all these things have already been 
better explained to you, so Ihave only just touched on these ~ 
points, as the change has no adequate reason for it. It is 
enough for us that the names were changed to abolish the 
remembrance of the kingdom of Judah from their hearts. 
Some Hebrews also assert these to have been the names of 
wise men. Whether it was so or not, it was the king’s plan 
to draw away those boys that they should have nothing in 
common with the elect people, but degenerate to the man- — 
ners of the Chaldeans. Daniel could not help the prince or 
master of the eunuchs changing his name, for it was not in 
his power to hinder it ; the same must be said of his com- 
panions. But they had enough to retain the remembrance 
of their race, which Satan, by this artifice, wished utterly to 
blot out. And yet this wasa great trial, because they suffered 
from their badge of slavery. Since their names were changed, 
either the king or his prefect Aspenaz wished to force them 
under the yoke, as if he would put before their eyes the 
judgment of their own slavery as often as they heard their 
names. We see, then, the intention of the change of name, 
namely, to cause these miserable exiles to feel themselves 
in captivity, and cut off from the race of Israel; and by 
this mark or symbol they were reduced to slavery, to the 
king of Babylon and his palace. This was, indeed, a hard 
trial, but it mattered not to the servants of God to be 
contemptuously treated before men, so long as they were not 
infected with any corruption; hence we conclude them to 
have been divinely governed, as they stood pure and spotless. 
For Daniel afterwards says— 

8. But Daniel purposed in his heart 8. Et posuit Daniel super 
that he would not defile himself with the cor suum,' ne pollueretur in 
portion of the king’s meat, nor with the portione cibi regis, et in vino 
wine which he drank: therefore he re- potuum ejus: et quesivit a ma- 


quested of the prince of the ennuchsthat gistro* Eunuchorum, ne pollue- 
he might not defile himself. retur. 


Here Daniel shews his endurance of what he could neither 
cast off nor escape ; but meanwhile he took care that he did 
1 Or in his heart: that is, determined or decreed with himself.— 


Calvin. 
* That is, asked the master.—Culvin. 








— 


CHAP. I. 8. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 97 


not depart from the fear of God, nor become a stranger to 
his race, but he always retains the remembrance of his 
origin, and remains a pure, and unspotted, and sincere wor- 
shipper of God. He says, therefore,—he determined in his 
heart not to pollute himself with the king’s food and drink, 


and that he asked the prefect, under whose charge he was, 


that he should not be driven to this necessity. It may be 
asked here, what there was of such importance in the diet 
to cause Daniel to avoid it? This seems to be a kind of 
superstition, or at least Daniel may have been too morose 
in rejecting the king’s diet. We know that to the pure all 
things are pure, and this rule applies to all ages. We read 
nothing of this kind concerning Joseph, and very likely 
Daniel used all food promiscuously, since he was treated 
by the king with great honour. This, then, was not perpe- 
tual with Daniel; for he might seem an inconsiderate zealot, 
or this might be ascribed, as we have said, to too much 
moroseness. If Daniel only for a time rejected the royal 
food, it was a mark of levity and inconsistency afterwards 
to allow himself that liberty from which he had for the 
time abstained. But if he did this with judgment and 
reason, why did he not persist in his purpose? I answer, 
—Daniel abstained at first from the luxuries of the court 
to escape being tampered with. It was lawful for him and 
his companions to feed on any kind of diet, but he perceived 
the king’s intention. We know how far enticements prevail 
to deceive us; especially when we are treated daintily ; and 
experience shews us how difficult it is to be moderate when 
all is affluence around us, for luxury follows immediately on 
plenty. Such conduct is, indeed, too common, and the virtue 
of abstinence is rarely exercised when there is an abundance 
of provisions. 

But this is not the whole reason which weighed with 
Daniel. Sobriety and abstinence are not simply praised 
here, since many twist this passage to the praise of fasting, 
and say Daniel’s chief virtue consisted in preferring pulse to 
the delicacies of a palace. For Daniel not only wished to 
guard himself against the delicacies of the table, since he 
perceived a positive danger of being eaten up by such 

VOL. I. @ 





98 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, II. 


enticements; hence he simply determined in his heart 
not to taste the diet of the court, desiring by his very food 
perpetually to recall the remembrance of his country. He 
wished so to live in Chaldea, as to consider himself an exile 
and a captive, sprung from the sacred family of Abraham. 
We see, then, the intention of Danicl. He desired to 
refrain from too great an abundance and delicacy of diet, 
simply to escape those snares of Satan, by which he saw 


himself surrounded. He was, doubtless, conscious of his own. 


infirmity, and this also is to be reckoned to his praise, since 
through distrust of himself he desired to escape from all 
allurements and temptations. As far as concerned the king’s 
intention, this was really a snare of the devil, as I have said: 
Daniel rejected it, and there is no doubt that God enlightened 
his mind by his Spirit as soon as he prayed to him. Hence, 


he was unwilling to cast himself into the snares of the devil, © 


while he voluntarily abstained from the royal diet. This is 
the full meaning of the passage. 7 

It may also be asked, Why does Daniel claim this praise 
as his own, which was shared equally with his companions ? 
for he was not the only one who rejected the royal diet. It 
is necessary to take notice, how from his childhood he was 
governed by the Spirit of God, that the confidence and influ- 
ence of his teaching might be the greater; hence he speaks 
peculiarly of himself, not for the sake of boasting, but to 
obtain confidence in his teaching, and to shew himself to 
have been for a long period formed and polished by God for 
the prophetic office. We must also remember that he was 
the adviser of his companions; for this course might never 
have come into their minds, and they might have been cor- 
rupted, unless they had been admonished by Daniel. God, 
therefore, wished Daniel to be a leader and master to his 
companions, to induce them to adopt the same abstinence. 
Hence also we gather, that as each of us is endued more 
fruitfully with the grace of the Spirit, so should we feel 
bound to instruct others. It will not be sufficient for any 
one to restrain himself and thus to discharge his own duty, 
under the teaching of God’s Spirit, unless he also extend his 
hand to others, and endeavour to unite in an alliance of piety, 


, 
4 
. 
a 


— a. a 





a ee ee ee 











CHAP. I. 8. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 99 


and of the fear and worship of God. Such an example is here 
proposed to us in Daniel, who not only rejected the delica- 
cies of the palace, by which he might be intoxicated and 
even poisoned ; but he also advised and persuaded his com- 
panions to adopt the same course. This is the reason why 
he calls tasting the king’s food pollution or abomination, 
though, as I have said, there was nothing abominable in it 
of itself. Daniel was at liberty to eat and drink at the royal 
table, but the abomination arose from the consequences. Be- 
fore the time of these four persons living in Chaldea, they 
doubtless partook of ordinary food after the usual manner, 
and were permitted to eat whatever was offered to them. 
They did not ask for pulse when at an inn, or on their 
journey ; but they began to desire it when the king wished 
to infect them with his delicacies, and to induce them if 
possible to prefer that condition to returning to their own 
friends. When they perceived the object of his snares, then 
it became both a pollution and abomination to feed on those 
dainties, and to eat at the king’s table. Thus we may 
ascertain the reason why Daniel thought himself polluted if 
he fared sumptuously and partook of the royal diet ; he was 
conscious, as we have already observed, of his own infirmi- 
ties, and wished to take timely precautions, lest he should 
be enticed by such snares, and fall away from piety and the 
worship of God, and degenerate into the manners of the 
Chaldeans, as if he were one of their nation, and of their 
native princes. I must leave the rest till to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, as long as our pilgrimage in this world con- 
tinues, that we may feed on such diet for the necessities of the 
flesh as may never corrupt us; and may we never be led aside 
from sobriety, but may we learn to use our abundance by pre- 
ferring abstinence in the midst of plenty: Grant also, that we 
may patiently endure want and famine, and eat and drink with 
such liberty as always to set before us the glory of thy Name. 
Lastly, may our very frugality lead us to aspire after that fulness 
by which we shall be completely refreshed, when the glory of thy 
countenance shall appear tous in heaven, through Jesus Christ 
our Lord.—Amen. 






100 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, III. 


Recture Third. 


9. Now Godhad brought Daniel 9. Dederat autem Deus Danielem' 
into favour and tender love with the in clementiam et miserationes coram 
prince of the eunuchs. prefecto eunuchorum. 


DanIEL, yesterday, related what he had asked from the 
master to whose care he had been committed: he now in- 
serts this sentence, to shew this demand to be quite unob- 
jectionable, since the prefect of the eunuchs treated him 
kindly. The crime would have been fatal had Daniel been 
brought into the king’s presence. Although very probably 
he did not use the word “ pollution,” and openly and directly 
call the royal diet a “defilement,” yet it may be easily 
conjectured from these words which he now records, that 
he asked the prefect to be permitted to eat pulse, because 
he did not think himself permitted to partake of the royal 
diet. We yesterday gave the reason ; but the king of Baby- 
lon would immediately have been angry, had he known this. 
What! he would say, I honour those captives, when I might 
abuse them as slaves; nay, I nourish them delicately like 
my own children, and yet they reject my food, as if I were 
polluted. This, therefore, is the reason why Daniel here re- 
lates his being in favour with that prefect. For, as we 


shall see in the next verse, the prefect simply denied his re- 


quest. Where was then any favourshewn? But though he 
was not willing to acquiesce in the prayers of Daniel, he 
shewed a singular kindness in not taking him before the 
king, since courtiers are ready for any accusation for the 
sake of obtaining favour. Then, very probably, the prefect 
would know that this had been granted to Daniel by his 
servant. If then there was any connivance on the part 
of the prefect, this is the favour and pity of which Daniel 
now speaks. His intention, then, is by no means doubtful, 
since he did not hesitate to adopt a different course of life, 
in order to remain pure and spotless, and uncontaminated 
with the delicacies of the palace of Babylon. He expresses 
how he escaped the danger, because the prefect treated 
1 Had put Daniel.—Calvin. 


j 





CHAP. I. 9. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 101 


him kindly, when he might have instantly caused his death. 
But we must notice the form of speech here used ;—God 
placed him in favour and pity before that prefect. He 
might have used the usual phrase, merely saying he was 
favourably treated ; but, as he found a barbarian so humane 
and merciful, he ascribes this benefit to God. This phrase, 
as we have expounded it, is customary with the Hebrews; 
as when it is said, (Ps. evi. 46,) God gave the Jews favour 
in the sight of the heathen who had led them captive ; 
meaning, he took care that their conquerors should not rage 
so cruelly against them as they had done at first. For we 
know how the Jews were often treated harshly, roughly, and 
contemptuously. Since this inhumanity was here mitigated, 
the Prophet attributes it to God, who prepared mercies for 
his people. The result is this;—Daniel obtained favour 
with the prefect, since God bent the heart of a man, other- 
wise unsoftened, to clemency and humanity. His object in 
this narrative is to urge us to greater earnestness in duty, if 
we have to undergo any difficulties when God calls us. 

It often happens that we cannot discharge everything which 
God requires and exacts without imminent danger to our 
lives. Sloth and softness naturally creep over us, and induce 
us to reject the cross. Daniel, therefore, gives us courage to 
obey God and his commands, and here states his favour with 
the prefect, since God granted his servant favour while faith- 
fully performing his duty. Hence let us learn to cast our 
care upon God when worldly terror oppresses us, or when 
men forbid us with threats to obey God’s commands. Here 
let us acknowledge the power of God’s hand to turn the 
hearts of those who rage against us, and to free us from all 
danger. This, then, is the reason why Daniel says the prefect 
was kind to him. Meanwhile, we gather the general doc- 
trine from this passage, that men’s hearts are divinely go- 
verned, while it shews us how God softens their iron hard- 
ness, and turns the wolf into the lamb. For when he brought 
his people out of Egypt, he gave them favour with the Egyp- 
tians, so that they carried with them their most precious 
vessels. It is clear enough that the Egyptians were hostile 
towards the Israelites. Why then did they so freely offer 





104 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. IIl. 


set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, nuchorum super Danielem, Ha- 
and Azariah, naniah, Misael, et Azariah, 

12. Prove thy servants, I beseech 12. Proba' servos tuos diebus de- 
thee, ten days; and let them give us cem, et apponantur nobis de legu- 


pulse to eat, and water to drink. minibus,’ et comedemus,’ et aque, 
quas bibamus. 
13. Then let our countenances be 13. Et inspiciantur coram facie 


looked upon before thee, and the tua vultus nostri, et vultus puero- 
countenance of the children that eat rum, qui vescuntur portione* cibi 
of the portion of the king’s meat; and regis: et quemadmodum videris 
as thou seest, deal with thy servants. fac cum servis tuis. 


Since Daniel understood from the answer of the prefeet 
that he could not obtain his wish, he now addresses his ser- 
vant. For the prefect had many servants under him, ae- 
cording to the custom of important stewardships. Most 
probably the steward’s duty was similar to that of the 
Chief Steward of the Household,’ as it exists at this time in 
France. Daniel and his companions were under the care of. 
one of these servants; Daniel descends to this remedy and 
obtains his wish, though, as we shall see, not without some 
artifice. And here Daniel’s singuiar constancy is observable, 
who after trying the matter once in vain, did not cease to 
pursue the same object. It is a clear and serious proof of 
our faith, when we are not fatigued when anything ad- 
verse occurs, and never consider the way closed against 
us. Then if we do not retrace our steps, but try all ways, 
we truly shew the root of piety fixed in cur hearts. It might 
have seemed excusable in Daniel, after he had met with 
his first repulse ; for who would not have said he had dis- 
charged his duty, and that an obstacle had prevailed over him! 
But since he did not prevail with the chief prefect, he goes 
to his servant. Thus voluntarily to incur risk was the result 
ofno common prudence. For this servant could not make the 
same objection, as we have just heard the prefect did. With- 
out doubt he had heard of Daniel’s request, and of his repulse 
and denial ; hence Daniel is beforehand with him, and shews 
how the servant may comply without the slightest danger ; 
as if he had said,—We, indeed, did not obtain our wish from 


1 Or try.— Calvin. ? Simply pulse.— Calvin. 
* Which we may eat.—Calvin. * A piece, as we said.—Calvin. 
5 Du grand Escuyer.—F*r. Trans. 








| aa $4 44 


pie 


OHAP.1. 11-13. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 105 


the prefect because he was afraid of his life, but I have now 
thought of a new scheme by which you may both gratify us 
and yet not become chargeable with any crime, as the whole 
matter will be unknown. Try thy servants, therefore, for 
ten days, and prove them; let nothing but pulse be given us 
to eat and water to drink. If after that time our faces are 
fresh and plump, no suspicion will attach to thee, and no one 
will be persuaded that we are not treated delicately accord- 
ing to the king’s commandment. Since, then, this proof 
will be sufficiently safe for thee, and cautious enough for us 
both, there is no reason why you should reject our prayers. 
Besides, without the slightest doubt, when Daniel brought 
this forward, he was directed by God’s Spirit to this act of 
prudence, and was also impelled to make this request. By 
the singular gift of the Holy Spirit Daniel invented this 
‘method of bending the mind of the servant under whose 
eare he was placed. We must hold, then, that this was 
not spoken rashly or of his own will, but by the instinct 
of the Holy Spirit. It would not have been duty but rash- 
ness, if Daniel had been the author of this plan, and had not 
been assured by the Lord of its prosperous issue. Without 
doubt he had some secret revelation on the subject; and 
if the servant allowed him and his associates to feed on pulse, 
it was a happy answer to his prayers. Hence, I say, he 
would not have spoken thus, except under the guidance and 
command of the Spirit. And this is worthy of notice, since 
we often permit ourselves to do many things which turn out 
badly, because we are carried away by the mere feelings of 
the flesh,and do not consider what is pleasing to God. It 
is not surprising, then, when men indulge in various expec- 
tations, if they feel themselves deceived at last, since every 
one occasionally imposes upon himself by foolish hopes, and 
thus frustrates his designs. Indeed, it is not our province 
to promise ourselves any success. Hence let us notice 
how Daniel had not undertaken or approached the present 
business with any foolish zeal ; and did not speak without 
due consideration, but was assured of the event by the Spirit 
of God. 

But he says, let pulse be put before us to eat, and water to 









106 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, IIT, 


drink. We see, then, that the four youths did not abstain 
from the royal food for fear of pollution ; for there was no 
law to prevent any one drinking wine, except the Nazar- 
ites, (Numb. vi. 2,) and they might eat of any kind of 
flesh, of which there was abundance at the royal table. 
Whence then sprang this secrupulousness ? because, as we said 
yesterday, Daniel was unwilling to accustom himself to the 
delicacies of the palace, which would cause him to become 
degenerate. He wished, therefore, to nourish his body not. 
only frugally, but abstemiously, and not to indulge in these 
tastes; for although he was raised to the highest honours, 
he was always the same as if still among the most wretched 
captives. There is no occasion for seeking other reasons for 
this abstinence of Daniel’s. For he might have fed on ordi- 
nary bread and other less delicate food ; but he was content 
with pulse, and was continually lamenting and nourishing in 
his mind the remembrance of his country, of which he 
would have been directly forgetful if he had been plunged 
into those luxuries of the palace. It follows: 


14. So he consented to them in 14. Et aundivit eos in hoe verbo, et 
this matter, and proved them ten probavit eos decem diebus. 
days. 
15. And at the end of tendays . 15. Eta fine decem dierum visus 
their countenances appeared fairer est vultus eorum pulcher,! et ipsi 
and fatter in flesh than all the pinguiores carne pre omnibus pue- 
children which did eat the portion ris,? qui comedebant portiones cibi 
of the king’s meat. regii. : 

Now this surprising event took place,—Daniel contracted 
neither leanness nor debility from that mean food, but his 
face was as shining as if he had continued to feed most 
delicately ; hence we gather as I have already said, that 
he was divinely impelled to persist firmly in his own de- 
sign, and not to pollute himself with the royal diet. God, 
therefore, testified by the result that he had advised Daniel 
and his companions in this their prayer and proposal. It 
is clear enough that there is no necessary virtue in bread 
to nourish us ; for we are nourished by God's secret bless- 


ing, as Moses says, Man lives not by bread alone, (Deut. — 


viii. 3,) implying that the bread itself does not impart 


1 Or plump.—Calvin. * Namely, the rest.—(alvin. 











CHAP. 1. 14,15. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 107 


strength to men, for the bread has no life in it; how 
then can it afford us life? As bread possesses no vir- 
tue by itself, we are nourished by the word of God; and 
because God has determined that our life shall be sustained 
by nourishment, he has breathed its virtue into the bread— 


- but, meanwhile, we ought to consider our life sustained 


neither by bread nor any other food, but by the secret bless- 
ing of God. For Moses does not speak here of either doc- 
trine or spiritual life, but says our bodily life is cherished 
by God’s favour, who has endued bread and other food 
with their peculiar properties. This, at least, is certain, 
—whatever food we feed on, we are nourished and sustained 
by God’s gratuitous power. But the example which Daniel 
here mentions was singular. Hence (God, as I have said, 
shews, by the event, how Daniel could not remain pure and 
spotless with his companions, otherwise than by being con- 
tent with pulse and water. We must observe, for our im- 
provement, in the first place,—we should be very careful 
not to become slaves of the palate, and thus be drawn off from 
our duty and from obedience and the fear of God, when we 
ought to live sparingly and be free from all luxuries. We 
see at this. day how many feel it a very great cross if they 
cannot indulge at the tables of the rich, which are filled 
with abundance and variety of food. Others are so hard- 
ened in the enjoyment of luxuries, that they cannot be con- 
tent with moderation ; hence they are always wallowing in 
their own filth, being quite unable to renounce the delights of 
the palate. But Daniel sufficiently shews us, when God not 
only reduces us to want, but when, if necessary, all indul- 
gences must be spontaneously rejected. Daniel indeed, as 
we saw yesterday, does not attach any virtue to absti- 
nence from one kind of food or another; and all we have 
hitherto learnt-has no other object than to teach him to guard 
against imminent danger, to avoid passing over to the morals 
of a strange nation, and so to conduct himself at Babylon as 
not to forget himself as a son of Abraham. But still it was 
necessary to renounce the luxuries of the court. Although 
delicate viands were provided, he rejected them of his own 
accord ; since, as we have seen, it would be deadly pollution, 





106 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. IIT, 


drink. We see, then, that the four youths did not abstain 
from the royal food for fear of pollution ; for there was no 
law to prevent any one drinking wine, except the Nazar- 
ites, (Numb. vi. 2,) and they might eat of any kind of 
flesh, of which there was abundance at the royal table. 
Whence then sprang this scrupulousness ? because, as we said 


yesterday, Daniel was unwilling to accustom himself to the — 


delicacies of the palace, which would cause him to become 


degenerate. He wished, therefore, to nourish his body not 


only frugally, but abstemiously, and not to indulge in these 
tastes; for although he was raised to the highest honours, 
he was always the same as if still among the most wretched 
captives. There is no occasion for seeking other reasons for 
this abstinence of Daniel’s. For he might have fed on ordi- 
nary bread and other less delicate food ; but he was content 
with pulse, and was continually lamenting and nourishing in 
his mind the remembrance of his country, of which he 
would have been directly forgetful if he had been plunged 
into those luxuries of the palace. It follows: 

14. So he consented to them in 14. Et andivit eos in hoe verbo, et 
7” matter, and proved them ten probavit eos decem diebus. 

“Ts. And at the end of ten days . 15. Eta fine decem dierum visus 
their countenances appeared fairer est vultus eorum pulcher,! et ipsi 
and fatter in flesh than all the pimguiores carne pre omnibus pue- 
children which did eat the portion ris,? qui comedebant portiones cibi 
of the king’s meat. regi. 

Now this surprising event took place,—Daniel contracted 
neither leanness nor debility from that mean food, but his 
face was as shining as if he had continued to feed most 
delicately ; hence we gather as I have already said, that 
he was divinely impelled to persist firmly in his own de- 
sign, and not to pollute himself with the royal diet. God, 
therefore, testified by the result that he had advised Daniel 
and his companions in this their prayer and proposal. It 
is clear enough that there is no necessary virtue in bread 
to nourish us ; for we are nourished by God's secret bless- 


ing, as Moses says, Man lives not by bread alone, (Deut. — 


vill. 3,) implying that the bread itself does not impart 


1 Or plump.—Calvin. * Namely, the rest.—Calvin. 


+ — 


ee eee ee ee ee ew eae 


Ee eee ne Se eee ee eee eee 


Bd ee ae ae eee ee ee 





cHAP. 1. 14,15. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 107 


strength to men, for the bread has no life in it; how 
then can it afford us life? As bread possesses no vir- 
tue by itself, we are nourished by the word of God; and 
because God has determined that our life shall be sustained 
by nourishment, he has breathed its virtue into the bread— 
but, meanwhile, we ought to consider our life sustained 
neither by bread nor any other food, but by the secret bless- 
ing of God. For Moses does not speak here of either doc- 
trine or spiritual life, but says our bodily life is cherished 
by God’s favour, who has endued bread and other food 
with their peculiar properties. This, at least, is certain, 
—whatever food we feed on, we are nourished and sustained 
by God’s gratuitous power. But the example which Daniel 
here mentions was singular. Hence God, as I have said, 
shews, by the event, how Daniel could not remain pure and 
spotless with his companions, otherwise than by being con- 
tent with pulse and water. We must observe, for our im- 
provement, in the first place,—we should be very careful 
not to become slaves of the palate, and thus be drawn off from 
our duty and from obedience and the fear of God, when we 
ought to live sparingly and be free from all luxuries. We 
see at this day how many feel it a very great cross if they 
cannot indulge at the tables of the rich, which are filled 
with abundance and variety of food. Others are so hard- 
ened in the enjoyment of luxuries, that they cannot be con- 
tent with moderation ; hence they are always wallowing in 
their own filth, being quite unable to renounce the delights of 
the palate. But Daniel sufficiently shews us, when God not 
only reduces us to want, but when, if necessary, all indul- 
gences must be spontaneously rejected. Daniel indeed, as 
we saw yesterday, does not attach any virtue to absti- 
nence from one kind of food or another; and all we have 
hitherto learnt-has no other object than to teach him to guard 
against imminent danger, to avoid passing over to the morals 
of a strange nation, and so to conduct himself at Babylon as 
not to forget himself as ason of Abraham. But still it was 
necessary to renounce the luxuries of the court. Although 
delicate viands were provided, he rejected them of his own 
accord ; since, as we have seen, it would be deadly pollution, 





108 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. III, 


not in itself but in its consequences. Thus Moses, when he 
fled from Egypt, passed into a new life far different from his 
former one; for he had lived luxuriously and honourably in 
the king’s palace, as if he had been the king’s grandson. 
But he lived sparingly in the Desert afterwards, and obtained 
his support by very toilsome labour. He preferred, says the 
Apostle, the cross of Christ to the riches of Egypt. (Heb. 
xi. 26.) How so? Because he could not be esteemed an 
Egyptian and retain the favour which had been promised to 
the sons of Abraham. It was a kind of self-denial always to 
remain in the king’s palace. 

We may take this test as a true proof of our frugality 
and temperance, if we are able to satisfy the appetite when 
God compels us to endure poverty and want ; nay, if we can 
spurn the delicacies which are at hand but tend to our 
destruction. For it would be very frivolous to subsist entire- 
ly on pulse and water; as greater intemperance sometimes 
displays itself in pulse than in the best and most dainty 
dishes. If any one in weak health desires pulse and other 
such food which is injurious, he will surely be condemned 
for intemperance. But if he feeds on nourishing diet, as they 
say, and thus sustains himself, frugality will have its praise. 
If any one through desire of water, and being too voracious, 
rejects wine, this as we well know would not be praiseworthy. 
Hence we ought not to subsist on this kind of food to dis- 
cover the greatness of Daniel’s virtue. But we ought always 
to direct our minds to the object of his design, namely, what 
he wished and what was in his power—so to live under the 
sway of the king of Babylon, that his whole condition should 
be distinct from that of the nation at large, and never to 
forget himself as an Israelite—and unless there had been 
this great difference, Daniel would have been unable to 
sharpen himself and to shake off his torpor, or to rouse him- 
self from it. Daniel necessarily kept before his mind some 
manifest and remarkable difference which separated him 
from the Chaldeans ; he desired pulse and water, through 
the injurious effects of good living. 

Lastly, this passage teaches us, although we should meet 
with nothing but the roots and leaves of trees, and even if 








iJ 
ot 


cHAP.1. 14,15. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 109 


the earth herself should deny us the least blade of grass, yet 
God by his blessing can make us healthy and active no less 
than those who abound in every comfort. God’s liberality, 
however, is never to be despised when he nourishes us with 
bread and wine and other diet ; for Paul enumerates, among 
things worthy of praise, his knowing how to bear both abun- 
dance and penury. (Phil. iv. 12.) When, therefore, God 


_bountifully offers us both meat and drink, we may soberly 


and frugally drink wine and eat savoury food; but when 


_ he takes away from us bread and water, so that we suffer 


from famine, we shall find his blessing sufficient for us in- 


_ stead of all nutriment. For we see that Daniel and his | 


companions were ruddy and plump, and even remarkably 
robust by feeding on nothing but pulse. How could this 
occur, unless the Lord, who nourished his people in the 
Desert on manna alone, when other diet was deficient, 
even at this day turns our food into manna, which would 
otherwise be injurious to us. (Exod. xvi. 4.) For if any 


_ one asks the medical profession, whether pulse and other 


leguminous plants are wholesome? they will tell us they 
are very injurious, since they know them to be so. But at 
the same time, when we have no choice of viands and cannot 


obtain what would conduce most to our health, if we are 


content with herbs and roots, the Lord, as I have said, can 


nourish us no less than if he put before us a table well sup- 


plied with every dainty. Temperance does not exist in the 
food itself, but in the palate—since we are equally intem- 
perate if pleasure entices us to gratify the appetite on infe- 
rior food—so, again, we may remain perfectly temperate 
though feeding on the best diet. We must form the same 
opinion of the properties of various viands, which do not 


_ Support us by their own inherent qualities, but by God’s 
_ blessing, as he sees fit. We sometimes see the children of 


the rich very emaciated, although they may receive the 


_ greatest attention. We see also the children of the country 
_ people most beautiful in form, ruddy in countenance, and 
healthy in condition ; and yet they feed on any kind of food, 
and sometimes upon what is injurious. But although they 
_ are deprived of tasty sauces, yet God gives them his blessing, 





110 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, LECT. IIT, 


and their unripe fruit, pork, lard, and even herbs, which seem 





most unwholesome, become more nourishing than if the 
people abounded in every delicacy. This, therefore, must — 


be remarked in the words of Daniel. It follows: 


16. Thus Melzar took away the 16. Et factum est, ut Melsar — 
portion of their meat, and the wine  tolleret sibi portionem cibi illorum — 


that they should drink, and gave them et vinum potionum eorum, et daret — 


pulse. . illis legumina. 


After Melsar saw it possible to gratify Daniel and his com- 
panions without danger and promote his own profit, he was 


humane and easily dealt with, and had no need of long dis- 
putation. For an intervening obstacle often deters us from — 
the pursuit of gain, and we forbear to seek what we very — 


much crave when it requires oppressive labour; but when 
our profit is at hand, and we are freed from all danger, then 


every one naturally pursues it. We see, then, what Daniel — 


means in this verse, namely, when Melsar saw the usefulness 
of this plan, and the possibility of his gaining by the diet 


assigned by the king to the four youths, then he gave them — 


pulse. But we must notice also Daniel’s intention. He 


wishes to shew that we ought not to ascribe it to the kind- — 


ness of man, that he and his companions could preserve them- 
selves pure and unspotted. Why so? Because he never 
could have obtained anything from this man Melsar, until 


he perceived it could be granted safely. Since, therefore, — 


Melsar consulted his own advantage and his private inter- — 


est, and wished to escape all risks and hazards, we easily 


gather that the benefit is not to be ascribed entirely to him. — 


Daniel and his companions obtained their wish, but God’s 
providence rendered this man tractable, and governed the 
whole event. Meanwhile, God openly shews how all the 


praise was due to himself, purposely to exercise the grati- — 


tude of Daniel and his associates. 


1 That is wine, which the king had appointed them to drink.—Culvin. — 





CHAP.1. 17. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 11] 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we are now encompassed by so many 
enemies, and the devil does not cease to harass us with fresh 
snares, so that the whole world is hostile to us, that we may per- 
ceive even the devil himself to be restrained by thy bridle. 
Grant, also, that all the impious may be subjected to thee, that 
thou mayest lead them whithersoever thou wishest. Do thou 
direct their hearts, and may we be experimentally taught how 
safe and secure we are under the protection of thy hand. And 
may we proceed, according to thy promise, in the course of our 
calling, until at length we arrive at that blessed rest which is laid 
up for us in heaven, by Christ our Lord.— Amen. 


Lecture Fourth. 


17. As for these four children, God 17. Et pueris illis quatuor, dedit, 
gave them knowledge and skill in inguam, illis Deus cognitionem et 
all learning and wisdom: and Daniel scientiam in omni literatura et sa- 
had understanding in all visions and pientia: et Daniel intellexit in omni 
dreams. visione et somniis, 


a 


Tue Prophet here shews what we have already touched 
upon, how his authority was acquired for exercising the pro- 
phetic office with greater advantage. He ought to be dis- 
tinguished by fixed marks, that the Jews first, and foreigners 
afterwards, might acknowledge him to be endued with the 
prophetic spirit. But a portion of this favour was shared 
with his three companions ; yet he excelled them all, because 
God fitted him specially for his office. Here the end is to 
be noticed, because it would be incorrect to say that their 
reward was bestowed by God, because they lived both fru- 
gally and heavenly, and spontaneously abstained from the 
delicacies of the palace ; for God had quite a different inten- 
tion. For he wished, as I have already said, to extol Daniel, 
to enable him to shew with advantage that Israel’s God is 
the only God; and as he wished his companions to excel 
hereafter in political government, he presented them also 
with some portion of his Spirit. But it is worth while 
to set Daniel before our eyes; because, as I have said, 
before God appointed him his Prophet, he wished to adorn 





112 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. IV. 


him with his own insignia, to procure confidence in his 
teaching. He says, therefore, to those four boys, or youths, 
knowledge and science were given in all literature and wisdom. 
Daniel was endued with a very singular gift—he was to 
be an interpreter of dreams, and an explainer of visions. 
Since Daniel here speaks of literature, without doubt he 
simply means the liberal arts, and does not comprehend 
the magical arts which flourished then and afterwards in 
Chaldea. We know that nothing was sincere among unbeliey- 
ers; and, on the other hand, I have previously admonished 
you, that Daniel was not imbued with the superstitions 
in those days highly esteemed in that nation. Through dis- 
content with genuine science, they corrupted the study of 
the stars; but Daniel and his associates were so brought up 
among the Chaldeans, that they were not tinctured with 
those mixtures and corruptions which ought always to be 
separated from true science. It would be absurd, then, to 
attribute to God the approval of magical arts, which it is 
well known were severely prohibited and condemned by the 
law itself. (Deut. xviii. 10.) Although God abominates 
those magical superstitions as the works of the devil, this 
does not prevent Daniel and his companions from being 
divinely adorned with this gift, and being very well versed in 
all the literature of the Chaldees. Hence this ought to be 
restricted to true and natural science. As it respects Daniel, 
he says, he understood even visions and dreams: and we 
know how by these two methods the Prophets were in- 
structed in the will of God. (Num. xii. 6.) For while God 
there blames Aaron and Miriam, he affirms this to be his 
usual method ; as often as he wishes to manifest his designs 
to the Prophets, he addresses them by visions and dreams. 
But Moses is treated out of the common order of men, 
because he is addressed face to face, and mouth to mouth. 
God, therefore, whenever he wished to make use of his Pro- 
phets, by either visions or dreams, made known to them what 
he wished to be proclaimed to the people. When, there- 
fore, it is here said,—Daniel understood dreams and vi- 
sions, it has the sense of being endued with the prophetic 
spirit. While his companions were superior masters and 


* 





CHAP. 1.18-20. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 113 
teachers in all kinds of literature, he alone was a Prophet 
of God. 

We now understand the object of this distinction, when 
an acquaintance with visions and dreams was ascribed pecu- 
liarly to Daniel. And here our previous assertion is fully 
confirmed, namely, that Daniel was adorned with the fullest 
proofs of his mission, to enable him afterwards to under- 
take the prophetic office with greater confidence, and ac- 
quire greater attention to his teaching. God could, indeed, 
prepare him in a single moment, and by striking terror 
and reverence into the minds of all, induce them to em- 
brace his teaching; but he wished to raise his servant by 
degrees, and to bring him forth at the fitting time, and not 
too suddenly: so that all might know by marks impressed 
for many years how to distinguish him from the common 
order of men. It afterwards follows: 


18. Now, at the end of the days that 
the king had said he should bring 
them in, then the prince of the eu- 
nuchs brought them in before Nebu- 
chadnezzar. 

19. And the king communed with 
them; and among them all was found 
none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, 
and Azariah: therefore stood they 
before the king. 

20. And in all matters of wisdom 
and understanding, that the king en- 
quired of them, he found them ten 
times better than all the magicians 
and astrologers that were in all his 
realm. 


18. Et a fine dierum, quibus 
edixerat Rex ut producerentur, 
introduxit eos princeps' eunucho- 
rum coram Nebuchadnezzar. 


19. Et loquutus est cum illis rex: 
et non inventus est ex omnibus 
sicut Daniel, Hananiah, Misael, et 
Azariah, et steterunt coram rege. 


20. Et in omni verbo, sapientia 
et intelligentia, quod sciscitatus est 
ab eis rex, invenit eos decuplo su- 
pra omnes genethliacos et astrolo- 
gos? qui erant in toto regno ejus. 


Now, Daniel] relates how he and his companions were 
brought forward at a fixed time, since three years was ap- 
pointed by the king for their instruction in all the science 
of the Chaldees: and on that account the prefect of the 
eunuchs produces them. He shews how he and his compa- 
niorts were approved by the king, and were preferred to all 
the rest. By these words he confirms my remark, that the 
Lord through a long interval had adorned them with much 
favour, by rendering them conspicuous throughout the royal 


? Or, prefect.—Calvin. 
* That is, superior to all the soothsayers and astrologers. —Calvin. 


VOL. I. H 





1ll+ COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, LECT. IV. 


palace, while the king himself acknowledged something un- 
common in them. He, as well as the courtiers, ought all 
to entertain such an opinion concerning these four youths, 
as should express his sincere reverence for them. Then 
God wished to illustrate his own glory, since without doubt 
the king was compelled to wonder how they could sur- 
pass all the Chaldeans. This monarch had spared no ex- 
pense on his own people, and had not neglected to instruct 
them ; but when he saw foreigners and captives so superior, 
a spirit of rivalry would naturally spring up within him. 
But, as I have already said, God wished to extol himself in 
the person of his servants, so that the king might be com- 
pelled to acknowledge something divine in these young men. 
Whence, then, was this superiority? for the Chaldeans boasted 
of their wisdom from their birth, and esteemed other nations 
as barbarians. The Jews, they would argue, are eminent 
beyond all others; verily the God whom they worship dis- 
tributes at his will talent and perception, since no one is 
naturally gifted unless he receives this grace from heaven, 
God, therefore, must necessarily be glorified, because Daniel 
and his comrades very far surpassed the Chaldeans. Thus 
God usually causes his enemies to gaze with wonder on his 
power, even when they most completely shun the light. For 
what did King Nebuchadnezzar propose, but to extinguish 
the very remembrance of God? For he wished to have 
about him Jews of noble family, who should oppose the very 
religion in which they were born. But God frustrated this 
plan of the tyrant’s, and took care to make his own name 
more illustrious. It now follows: 


21. And Daniel continued even 21. Et fuit Daniel usque ad an- 
unto the first year of king Cyrus. num primum Cyri regis. 


Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we 
shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the 
third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word F'n, 
haiah, by to be “broken ;” but this is by no means in ac- 
cordance with the history. Their opinion is right who say 
that Daniel continued to the first year of the reign of Cyrus 
in the discharge of the prophetic office, although expositors 
do not openly say so; but I state openly what they say ob- 





 @HAP. IT. |. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. ERE 


scurely. For since he afterwards set out into Media, they 
say this change is denoted here. But we may understand 
the words better in the sense of Daniel’s flourishing among 
the Chaldeans and Assyrians, and being acknowledged as 
a celebrated Prophet; because he is known to have in- 
terpreted King Belshazzar’s vision, on the very night on 
which he was slain. The word here is simple and complete 
—he was—but it depends on the succeeding ones, since he 
always obtained the confidence and authority of a Prophet 
with the kings of Babylon. This, then, is the true sense.’ 


CHAPTER SECOND. 


In this second chapter we are informed how God brought 
Daniel into a theatre, to exhibit that prophetic office to 
which he had been destined. God had already engraven, 
as we have said, distinct marks by which Daniel might be 
acknowledged as a Prophet, but he wished really to prove 
the effect of the grace which he had conferred upon Daniel. 
First of all, a simple history is narrated, then Daniel pro- 
ceeds to the interpretation of a dream. ‘This is the head- 
ing of the chapter. 


1. And in the second year of the reign 1. Anno autem secundo regni 
of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar somniavit Ne- 
dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit buchadnezzar somnia: et con- 
was troubled, and his sleep brake from __ tritus fuit spiritusejus,et somnus 
him. ejus interruptus est ei.? 


Daniel here says,—King Nebuchadnezzar dreamt in the 
second year of his reign. This seems contrary to the opinion 
expressed in the first chapter. For if Nebuchadnezzar be- 
sieged Jerusalem in the first year of his reign, how could 
Daniel be already reckoned among the wise men and astro- 
logers, while he was as yet but a disciple? Thus it is 
easily gathered from the context that he and his com- 
panions were already brought forward to minister before 
the king. At the first glance these things are not in accord- 
ance, because in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign 
Daniel and his companions were delivered into training ; and 


1 See the Dissertations at the end of this Volume. 
2 As they translate, or “ departed from him,” or was upon him.—Culvin. 





116 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. IV, 


in the second he was in danger of death through being in the 
number of the Magi. Some, as we have mentioned else- 
where, count the second year from the capture and destrue- 
tion of the city, for they say Nebuchadnezzar was called 
king from the time at which he obtained the monarchy in 
peace. Before he had cut off the City and Temple with the 
Nation, his Monarchy could not be treated as united ; henee 
they refer this to the capture of the city, as I have said. 
But I rather incline to another conjecture as more probable — 
—that of his reigning with his father, and I have shewn that 
when he besieged Jerusalem in the time of Jehoiachim, 
he was sent by his father; he next returned to Chaldea 
from the Egyptian expedition, through his wish to repress 
revolts, if any one should dare to rebel. In this, therefore, 
there is nothing out of place. Nebuchadnezzar reigned be- 
fore the death of his father, because he had already been 
united with him in the supreme power; then he reigned 
alone, and the present narrative happened in the second year 
of his reign. In this explanation there is nothing forced, 
and as the history agrees with it, I adopt it as the best. 

He says—he dreamt dreams, and yet only one Dream 
is narrated ; but since many things were involved in this 
dream, the use of the plural number is not surprising. It is 
now added, his spirit was contrite, to shew us how uncom- 
mon the dream really was. For Nebuchadnezzar did not 
then begin to dream, and was not formerly so frightened 
every night as to send for all the Magi. Hence, in this 
dream there was something extraordinary, which Daniel 
wished to express in these words. The clause at the end of 
the verse which they usually translate his sleep was inter- 
rupted, does not seem to have this sense ; another explana- 
tion which our brother D. Antonius gave you’ suits it better ; 
namely,—his sleep was upon him, meaning he began to 
sleep again. The genuine and simple sense of the words 
seems to me—/is spirit was confused, that is, very great 
terror had seized on his mind. He knew, indeed, the dream 
to be sent from heaven; next, being astonished, he slept 


1 This clause “ which our brother D. Antonius gave you,” is omitted in 
the French editions of 1562 and 1569. 





CHAP. II. 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 117 


again, and became like a dead man, and when he considered 
the interpretation of the dream, he became stupified and 
returned to sleep and forgot the vision, as we shall after- 
wards see. It follows— 3 

2. Then the king commanded to call 2. Etedixit rex ut vocaren- 
the magicians, and the astrologers, and tur! astrologi, et conjectores, et 
the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to divini, et Chaldei, annuntiarent 
shew the king hisdreams. Sotheycame regi somnia sua:? et venerunt 
and stood before the king. et steterunt in conspectu regis. 

This verse more clearly proves what I have already said— 
that the dream caused the king to feel God to be its 
author. Though this was not his first dream, yet the terror 
which God impressed on his mind, compelled him to sum- 
mon all the Magi, since he could not rest even by returning 
to sleep. He felt as it were a sting in his mind, since God 
did not suffer him to rest, but wished him to be troubled 
until he received an interpretation of the dream. Even 
profane writers very correctly consider dreams connected 
with divine agency. They express various opinions, be- 
cause they could not know anything with perfect certainty ; 
yet the persuasion was fixed in their minds relative to 
some divine agency in dreams. It would be foolish and 
puerile to extend this to all dreams; as we see some per- 
sons never passing by a single one without a conjecture, and 
thus making themselves ridiculous. We know dreams to 
arise from different causes ; as, for instance, from our daily 
thoughts. If I have meditated on anything during the day- 
time, something occurs to me at night in a dream ; because 
the mind is not completely buried in slumber, but retains 
some seed of intelligence, although it be suffocated. Expe- 
rience also sufficiently teaches us how our daily thoughts 
recur during sleep, and hence the various affections of the 
mind and body produce many dreams. If any one retires to 
bed in sorrow from either the death of a friend, or any loss, 
or through suffering any injury or adversity, his dreams will 
partake of the previous preparation of his mind. The 
body itself causes dreams, as we see in the case of those 

1 [hardly know by what equivalent expressions to render these Hebrew 


words. I will speak, therefore, of the thing itself.— Calvin. 
* That is, to expound his dreams to the king.— Calvin. 





118 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. IV. 


who suffer from fever; when thirst prevails they imagine 
fountains, burnings, and similar fancies. We perceive also 
how intemperance disturbs men in their sleep; for drunken 
men start and dream in their sleep, as if in a state of 
phrensy. As there are many natural causes for dreams, 
it would be quite out of character to be seeking for divine 
agency or fixed reason in them all; and on the other hand, 
it is sufficiently evident that some dreams are under divine 


regulation. I omit events which have been related in — 


ancient histories; but surely the dream of Calphurnia, the 
wife of Julius Cesar, could not be fictitious ; because, before 
he was slain it was commonly reported, “ Cesar has been 
killed,” just as she dreamt it. The same may be said of the 
physician of Augustus, who had ordered him to leave his 
tent the day of the battle of Pharsalia, and yet there was 
no reason why the physician should order him to be carried 
out of the tent on a litter, unless he had dreamt it to be 
necessary. What was the nature of that necessity? why, 
such as could not be conjectured by human skill, for the 
camp of Augustus was taken at that very moment. I doubt 
not there are many fabulous accounts, but here I may choose 
what I shall believe, and I do not yet touch on dreams which 
are mentioned in God’s word, for I am merely speaking: of 
what profane men were compelled to think on this subject. 
Although Aristotle freely rejected all sense of divination, 
through being prejudiced in the matter, and desiring to 
reduce the nature of Deity within the scope of human inge- 
nuity, and to comprehend all things by his acuteness ; yet 
he expresses this confession, that all dreams do not happen 
rashly, but that wavtixn, that is “ divination,” is the source 
of some of them. He disputes, indeed, whether they belong 
to the intellectual or sensitive portion of the mind, and 
concludes they- belong to the latter, as far as it is imagi- 
native. Afterwards, when inquiring whether they are 
causes or anything of that kind, he is disposed to view them 
only as symptoms or accidents fortuitously contingent. 
Meanwhile, he will not admit dreams to be sent from hea- 
ven; and adds as his reason, that many stupid men dream, 
and manifest the same reason in them as the wisest. He 


Se ee ee ee ee es eee ee 


oe 





_OHAP. II. 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 119 


notices next the brute creation, some of which, as elephants, 
dream. As the brutes dream, and wise men more seldom 
than the rudest idiots, Aristotle does not think it probable 
that dreams are divinely inspired. He denies, therefore, 
that they are sent from God, or divine, but asserts that they 
spring from the Daimones ;' that is, he fancies them to be 
something between the natures of the Deity and the Dai- 
mones. We know the sense in which philosophers use that 
word, which, in Scripture, has usually a bad sense. He 
says that dreams were occasioned by those aérial inspirations, 
but are not from God ; because, he says, man’s nature is not 
divine, but inferior ; and yet more than earthly, since it is 
angelic. Cicero discourses on this subject at great length, 
in his first book on Divination ; although he refutes in the 
second all he had said, while he was a disciple of the Aca- 
demy.” For among other arguments in proof of the existence 
of deities, he adds dreams ;—if there is any divination iu 
dreams, it follows that there is a Deity in heaven, for the 
mind of man cannot conceive of any dream without divine in- 
spiration. Cicero’s reasoning is valid ; if there is divination 
in dreams, then is there also a Deity. The distinction made 
by Macrobius is worthy of notice ; although he ignorantly con- 
founds species and genera, through being a person of imper- 
fect judgment, who strung together in rhapsodies whatever 
he read, without either discrimination or arrangement. This, 
then, should remain fixed,—the opinion concerning the ex- 
istence of some kind of divine agency in dreams was not 
rashly implanted in the hearts of all men. Hence that ex- 
pression of Homer’s, a dream is from Jupiter.’ He docs not 
mean this generally and promiscuously of all dreams ; but he 
takes notice of it, when bringing the characters of his heroes 
before us, since they were divinely admonished in their sleep. 

I now come to NepucHaDNEZzZAR’s Dream. In this, two 
points are worthy of remark: First, all remembrance of its 


1 Calvin uses the Greek words fitreuarra, éeiz, ANd damone. The Greek 
Daimones corresponded with our idea of angels, and were said to be the 
origin of human souls. See most interesting passages in the Dialogues 
of Plato, also the DisseRTATION on this verse at the close of the Volume. 

* De Divin., lib. i. § 21-23; and lib. ii. § 58, et seq. 

* Tliad, book i. v. 63. 





120 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. IV. 


subject was entirely obliterated; and secondly, no inter- 
pretation was found for it. Sometimes the remembrance of 
a dream was not lost while its interpretation was unknown, 
But here Nebuchadnezzar was not only perplexed at the 
interpretation of the dream, but even the vision itself had 
vanished, and thus his perplexity and anxiety was doubled. 
As to the next point, there is no novelty in Daniel making 
known the interpretation; for it sometimes, but rarely, 
happens that a person dreams without a figure or enigma, 
and with great plainness, without any need of conjurors—a 
name given to interpreters of dreams. This indeed hap- 
pens but seldom, since the usual plan of dreams is for God 
to speak by them allegorically and obscurely. And this 
occurs in the case of the profane as well as of the servants 
of God. When Joseph dreamt that he was adored by the 
sun and moon, (Gen. xxxvii. 9,) he was ignorant of its 
meaning ; when he dreamt of his sheaf being adored by his 
brothers’ sheaves, he understood not its meaning, but related 
it simply to his brothers. Hence God often speaks in enig- 
mas by dreams, until the interpretation is added. And such 
was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. 

We perceive, then, that God reveals his will even to un- 
believers, but not clearly ; because seeing they do not see, 
just as if they were gazing at a closed book or sealed let- 
ter; as Isaiah says,—God speaks to unbelievers in broken 
accents and with a stammering tongue. (Is. xxviii. 11, 
and xxix. 11.) God’s will was so revealed to Nebuchad- 
nezzar that he still remained perplexed and lay completely 
astonished. His dream would have been of no use to him, 
unless, as we shall see, Daniel had been presented to him 
as its interpreter. For God not only wished to hold the 
king in suspense, but he thus blotted out the remem- 
brance of the dream from his mind, to increase the power 
of his sting. As mankind are accustomed to neglect the 
dreams which they do not remember, God inwardly fastened 
such a sting in the mind of this .unbeliever, as I have 
already said, that he could not rest, but was always wakeful 
in the midst of his dreaming, because God was drawing him 
to himself by secret chains. This is the true reason why God 


- 


a 


CHAP. II. 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 121 


denied him the immediate explanation of his dream, and 
blotted out the remembrance of it from his mind, until he 
should receive both from Daniel. We will leave the rest till 
to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since every perfect gift comes from thee, 
and since some excel others in intelligence and talents, yet as no 
one has anything of his own, but as thou deignest to distribute 
to man a measure of thy gracious liberality,—Grant that what- 
ever intelligence thou dost confer upon us, we may apply it to 
the glory of thy name. Grant also, that we may acknowledge 
in humility and modesty what thou hast committed to our care 
to be thine own; and may we study to be restrained by sobriety, 
to desire hothing superfluous, never to corrupt true and genuine 
knowledge, and to remain in that simplicity to which thou callest 
us. Finally, may we not rest in these earthly things, but learn 
rather to raise our minds to true wisdom, to acknowledge thee 
to be the true God, and to devote ourselves to the obedience of 
thy righteousness; and may it be our sole object to devote and 
consecrate ourselves entirely to the glory of thy name through- 
out our lives, through Jesus Christ our Lord.— Amen. 


Lecture Fifth. 


Wz yesterday saw the Magi sent for by the king’s edict, 
not only in order to explain his dream to him, but also 
to narrate the dream itself which had slipt from his 
memory. But since four kinds of Magi are used here, or 
at least three, and their description is added in the fourth 
place, I shall briefly touch upon what seems to me their 
meaning. DYSON, Hartummim, is usually explained by 
“ soothsayers,’ and afterwards D’SWN, Assaphim, they 
think, means “physicians.” I am unwilling to contend 
against the first interpretation ; but I see no reason for the 
second. ‘They interpret it as “physicians,” because they 
judge of men’s health by feeling the pulse, but having no 
better reason than this, L adopt the opinion that it refers to 
astrologers. In the third place, D555, Mecasphim, is 
used, meaning “sorcerers,” though some change the signifi- 


122 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. | LECT. Y. 


cation, and say it means “ star-gazers,’ who indicate future 
events and predict unknown ones from the position of 
the stars. I have nothing to bring forward more probable 
than this, except the uncertainty of what the Hebrews meant 


by the word: for since the matter itself is so buried in obli-- 


vion, who can distinguish between words which belong to 
the profession of an unknown art? OW, Casdim, is 
doubtless put for a race, for it is the name of a nation, yet 
on account of its excellence, the Magi appropriated it to 
themselves, as if the nobility and excellence of the whole 
nation was in their power ; and this name is known to be in 
common use in Greece and Italy. All who professed their 
ability to predict future or hidden events from the stars or 
other conjectures, were called Chaldees. With respect to 
the three other words, I do not doubt their honourable 
meaning, and for this reason they called themselves Mathe- 
maticians, as if there were no science in the world except 
with them. Besides, although their principles were good, 
they were certainly stuffed with many superstitions, for they 
were soothsayers and diviners, and we know them to have 
given especial attention to augury. Although they were 
highly esteemed by their fellow-countrymen, yet they are 
condemned by God’s law, for all their pretence to science was 
complete imposture. They are generally called Magi, and 
also Chaldeans, as shortly afterwards, when Daniel will re- 
peat what they have spoken before the king, he will not 
enumerate those three species, but will simply call them 
Chaldees. It is surprising that Daniel and his companions 
were not called among them, for he ought to have been 
called among the first, since the king, as we have said, found 
these four to be ten times better than all the Magi and 
Diviners throughout his kingdom! Since their dexterity 
was not unknown to the king, why does he pass them 
completely by, while the other Magi are at hand and are 
called in to a case so arduous? Very probably the king 
omitted them because he trusted more in the natives ; or 
suspected the captives, and was unwilling to entrust them 
with his secrets, as he had not yet sufficiently tried their 
fidelity and constancy. This might have been the reason, 





- 
sx ee ee 





CHAP.II.3, 4. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 125 


but it is better for us to consider the intention of the Al- 
mighty, for I have no doubt that this forgetfulness on the 
part of the king occurred by God’s providence, as he was 
unwilling from the first to mingle his servant Daniel and 
the rest with the Magi and Soothsayers. This accounts for 
Daniel not being sent for with the rest ; whence, as we shall 
see, his divination would afterwards become more illustrious. 
It now follows : 


3. And the king said unto them, I 3. Et dixit illis rex, Somnium 
have dreamed a dream, and my spirit sommiavi, et contritus est spiritus 
was troubled to know the dream. meus, ad sciendum! somnium. 


I will add the next verse: 


4. Then spake the Chaldeans to the 4, Et dixerunt Chaldei regi 
king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: Syriace, Rex in eternum vive: 
tell thy servants the dream, and we will dic somnium servis tuis, et expo- 
shew the interpretation. sitionem indicabimus. 


Daniel relates first the great confidence of the Chaldeans, 
since they dared to promise the interpretation of a dream 
as yet unknown to them. The king says he was troubled 
through desire to understand the dream ; by which he signi- 
fies that a kind of riddle was divinely set before him. He 
confesses his ignorance, while the importance of the object 
may be gathered from his words. Since, then, the king 
testifies his desire to inquire concerning a matter obscure 
and profound, and exceeding his comprehension, and since 
he clearly expresses himself to be contrite in spirit, some 
kind of fear and anxiety ought to have touched these 
Chaldeans ; yet they securely promise to offer the very best 
interpretation of the dream as soon as they understood it. 
When they say, O king, live for ever, it is not a simple and un- 
meaning prayer, but they rather order the king to be cheer- 
fal and in good spirits, as they are able to remove all care 
and anxiety from his mind, because the explanation of the 
dream was at hand. We know how liberal in words those 
impostors always were; according to the language of an 
ancient poet, they enriched the ears and emptied the purses 
of others. And truly those who curiously court the breeze 
with their ears deserve to feed upon it, and to be taken in 
by such deceits. And all ages have proved that nothing 


’ For understanding.— Calvin. 





124 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. V, 


exceeds the confidence of astrologers, who are not content 
with true science, but divine every one’s life and death, and 
conjecture all events, and profess to know everything. 

We must hold generally that the art of conjecturing from 
dreams is rash and foolish ; there is, indeed, a certain fixed 
interpretation of dreams, as we said yesterday, yet as we 
shall afterwards see, this ought not to be ascribed to a sure 
science, but to God’s singular gift. As, therefore, a prophet 
will not gather what he has to say from fixed reasonings, but 
will explain God’s oracles, so also he who will interpret 
dreams correctly, will not follow certain distinct rules ; but if 
God has explained the meaning of the dream, he will then 
undertake the office of interpreting it according to his en- 
dowment with this gift. Properly speaking, these two 
things are opposite to each other and do not mutually agree, 
general and perpetual science, and special revelation. Since 
God claims this power of opening by means of a dream, 
what he has engraven on the minds of men, hence art and 
science cannot obtain it, but a revelation from the spirit 
must be waited for. When the Chaldeans thus boldly pro- 
mise to become good interpreters of the dream, they not 
only betray their rashness, but become mere impostors, who 
pretend to be proficients in a science of which they know 
nothing, as if they could predict by their conjectures the 
meaning of the king’s dream. It now follows: 


5. The king answered and said to the 5. Respondit rex et dixit 
Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if Chaldeis, Sermo a me exiit,! si 
ye will not make known unto me the non indicaveritis mihi somnium 
dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye et interpretationem ejus, frusta 
shall be cut in pieces, and your houses efficiemini,?> et domus vestre 
shall be made a dunghill. ponentur sterquilinium.® 


Here the king requires from the Chaldeans more than they 
professed to afford him ; for although their boasting, as we 
have said, was foolish in promising to interpret any dream, 
yet they never claimed the power of narrating to any one 
his dreams. The king, therefore, seems to me to act unjustly 


? Or, has departed.—Calvin. 

* Some translate 270, hedmin, by “ blood ;” but the received meaning 
is better, and since there is little difference in the matter itself, I shall not 
trouble you concerning it.—Calvin. 

® That is, shall be made a dunghill.—Calvin. 


—* 
e 
F > 
a 
ee 

( 


CHAP, It. 5. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 125 


in not regarding what they had hitherto professed, and the 
limits of their art and science, if indeed they had any 
science! When he says—the matter or speech had de- 
parted from him, the words admit of a twofold sense, for 
mbt, millethah, may be taken for an “ edict,” as we shall 
afterwards see; and so it might be read, has flowed away ; 
but since the same form of expression will be shortly repeated 
when it seems to be used of the dream, (ver. 8,) this expla- 
nation is suitable enough, as the king says his dream had 
vanished : so I leave the point undecided. It is worth while 
noticing again what we said yesterday, that terror was so 
fastened upon the king as to deprive him of rest, and yet 
he was not so instructed that the least taste of the revela- 
tion remained ; just as if an ox, stunned by a severe blow, 
should toss himself about, and roll over and over. Such 
is the madness of this wretched king, because God harasses 
him with dreadful torments ; all the while the remembrance 
of the dream is altogether obliterated from his mind. Hence 
he confesses—his dream had escaped him; and although 
the Magi had prescribed the limits of their science, yet 
through their boasting themselves to be interpreters of the 
gods, he did not hesitate to exact of them what they had 
never professed. This is the just reward of arrogance, when 
men puffed up with a perverse confidence assume before 
others more than they ought, and forgetful of all modesty wish 
to be esteemed angelic spirits. Without the slightest doubt 
God wished to make a laughingstock of this foolish boast- 
_ ing which was conspicuous among the Chaldees, when the 
king sharply demanded of them to relate his dream, as well 
as to offer an exposition of it. 
He afterwards adds threats, clearly tyrannical ; wnless they 
expound the dream, their life is in danger. No common 
_ punishment is threatened, but he says they should be- 
come “ pieces” —if we take the meaning of the word to signify 
“pieces.” If we think it means “ blood,” the sense will be 
the same. This wrath of the king is clearly furious, nay, 
Nebuchadnezzar in this respect surpassed all the cruelty of 
wild beasts. What fault could be imputed to the Chaldeans 
if they did not know the king’s dream ?—surely, they had 


126 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. V. 


never professed this, as we shall afterwards see; and no king 
had ever demanded what was beyond the faculty of man. 
We perceive how the king manifested a brutal rage when 
he denounced death and every cruel torture on the Magi and 
sorcerers. Tyrants, indeed, often give the reins to their 
lust, and think all things lawful to themselves ; whence, also, 
these words of the tragedian, Whatever he wishes is law- 
ful. And Sophocles says, with evident truth, that any one 
entering a tyrant’s threshold must cast away his liberty ; 
but if we were to collect all examples, we should scarcely 
find one like this. It follows, then, that the king’s mind was 
impelled by diabolic fury, urging him to punish the Chal- 
dees who, with respect to him, were innocent enough. We 
know them to have been impostors, and the world to have 
been deluded by their impositions, which rendered them de- 
serving of death, since by the precepts of the law it was a 
capital crime for any one to pretend to the power of prophecy 
by magic arts. (Lev. xx. 6.) But, as far as concerned the 
king, they could not be charged with any crime. Why, then, 
did he threaten them with death? because the Lord wished 
to shew the miracle which we shall afterwards see. For if 
the king had suffered the Chaldeans to depart, he could have 
buried directly that anxiety which tortured and exeruciated 
his mind. The subject, too, had been less noticed by the 
people ; hence God tortured the king’s mind, till he rushed 
headlong in his fury, as we have said. Thus, this atro- 
cious and cruel denunciation ought to have aroused all 
men; for there is no doubt that the greatest and the least 
trembled together when they heard of such vehemence in 
the monarch’s wrath. This, therefore, is the complete sense, 
and we must mark the object of God’s providence in thus 
allowing the king’s anger to burn without restraint.’ It 
follows: 


1 Calvin is correct. in preferring the sense of “ pieces ” to that of “ blood ;” 
for D1, hedem, is a Chaldee word, and the } is the Chaldee plural ending ; 


his criticism, too, on mp, meleh, is also correct; for it is the Chaldee 
equivalent for 135, deber, a “‘ word” or thing, and justly rendered “ edict.” 
As great light has been thrown upon the meaning and derivation of single 
words since Calvin’s time, we may often find that modern knowledge has 
rendered his derivations untenable; still the soundness of his judgment is 





4 
7 


i 
j 
4 
i 


; 


} 








CHAP, IL. 6. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 127 


6. But if ye shew the dream, and 6. Et si somnium, et interpreta- 
the interpretation thereof, ye shall tionem ejus indicaveritis, donum, 
receive of me gifts and rewards, and et munus, et honorem, vel pretium, 
great honour: therefore shew me the magnum accipietis a facie mea:! 
dream, and the interpretation there- propterea somnium, et interpreta- 

tionem ejus indicate mihi. 

Here the king, on the other hand, desires to entice them 
by the hope of gain, to apply themselves to narrate his dream. 
He had already attempted to strike them with horror, that 
even if they are unwilling he may wrest the narration of the 
dream from them, as well as its interpretation. Meanwhile, 
if they could be induced by flattery, he tries this argument 
upon them ; for he promises a gift, and reward, and honour, 
that is, he promises a large remuneration if they narrated 
his dream, and were faithful interpreters. Hence we gather, 
what all history declares, that the Magi made a gain of their ~ 
predictions and guesses. The wise men of the Indies, being 
frugal and austere in their manner of living, were not wholly 
devoted to gain; for they are known to have lived without 
any need of either money, or furniture, or anything else. 
They were content with roots, and had no need of cloth- 
ing, slept upon the ground, and were thus free from avarice. 
But the Chaldeans, we know, ran hither and thither to ob- 
tain money from the simple and credulous. Hence the 
king here speaks according to custom when he promises a 
large reward. We must remark here, how the Chaldeans 
scattered their prophecies for the sake of gain; and when 
knowledge is rendered saleable, it is sure to be adulterated 
with many faults. As when Paul speaks of corruptors of 
the Gospel, he says,—they trafficked in it, (2 Cor. ii. 17,) 
because when a profit is made, as we have previously said, 
even honourable teachers must necessarily degenerate and 
pervert all sincerity by their lying. For where avarice 
reigns, there is flattery, servile obsequiousness, and cunning 
of all kinds, while truth is utterly extinguished. Whence it 
worthy of notice. It may be added, too, that the perplexity is increased 
when Chaldee forms are used, although there is a uniform change of single 
letters observable in the two languages. Thus &, sh, becomes N, th, as 
in verses 7 and 14; the Hebrew }?. z, becomes “, d, in ver. 26; so the 
¥, tz, becomes }, gn; the final 7, A, is turned into &, a, and the final 


D, m, into }, n. 
1 That is, by me.—Calvin. 





128 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. V. 


i 
{ 


is not surprising if the Chaldeans were so inclined to deceit, 
as it became natural to them through the pursuit of gain — 
and the lust for wealth. Some honest teachers may receive — 
support from the public treasury ; but, as we have said, when — 
any one is drawn aside by lucre, he must necessarily pervert — 
and deprave all purity of doctrine. And from this passage 

we gather, further, the anxiety of the king, as he had no 

wish to spare expense, if by this means he could elicit the — 
interpretation of his dream from the Chaldeans; all the 
while he is furiously angry with them, because he does not 


obtain what the offered reward ought to procure. 


follows: 


7. They answered again, and said, 
Let the king tell his servants the 
dream, and we will shew the interpre- 
tation of it. 

8. The king answered and said, I 
know of certainty that ye would gain 
the time, because ye see the thing is 
gone from me. 


It now 


7. Responderunt secundo, et 
dixerunt, Rex somnium exponat* 
servis suis, et interpretationem in- 
dicabimus. | 

8. Respondit rex et dixit, Vere? — 
novi ego* quod tempus redimitis, 
quia scitis quod exierit sermo — 
a me.* 


We may add the following verse ; 


9. But if ye will not make known 
unto me the dream, there is but one 
decree for you; for ye have prepared 
lying and corrupt words to speak be- 
fore me, till the time be changed : 
therefore tell me the dream, and I 
shall know that ye can shew me the 
interpretation thereof. 


9. Propterea si somnium non 
indicaveritis mihi, una hee sen- 
tentia est; et sernionem mendacem® 
et corruptum preparastis ad di- 
cendum coram me, donee tempus 
mutetur ;° propterea somnium nar- 
rate mihi, et cognoscam quod inter- 
pretationem ejus mihi indicetis.” 


Here the excuse of the Magi is narrated. They state the 
truth that their art only enabled them to discover the in- 
terpretation of a dream; but the king wished to know 
the dream itself. Whence he appears again to have been 
seized with prodigious fury and became quite implacable. 
Kings sometimes grow warm, but are appeased by a single 
admonition, and hence this sentiment is very true,—anger 


is assuaged by mild language. But since the fair re- 
* Narrate.—Calvin. * In truth.—Calvin. 
* Now I know.—Calvin. 
* That is, that the dream has fallen out of my mind, or the sentence has 
gone out of my lips.—Calvin. 
> Or, fallacious. —Calvin.  & That is, pass by.—Calvin. 
" That is, ye may be able to explain to me.—Calvin. 





CHAP. I. 7-9. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 129 


ply of the Magi did not mitigate the king’s wrath, he 
was quite hurried away by diabolical vehemence. And 


all this, as I have said, was governed by God’s secret coun- 


sel, that Danicl’s explanation might be more noticed. They 


next ask the king—to relate his dream, and then they 


promise as before to interpret it directly. And even this was 
too great a boast, as we have said, and they ought to have 
corrected their own conceit and foolish boasting when in 
such a difficulty. But since they persist in that foolish and 
fallacious self-conceit, it shews us how they were blinded by 
the devil, just as those who have become entangled by super- 
stitious deceptions confidently defend their own madness. 
Such an example we have in the Magi, who always claimed 
the power of interpreting dreams. 

The king’s exception now follows :—TI know, says he, that 
ye would gain time, since you are aware that the matter has 
gone from me, or the word has been pronounced, if we adopt 
the former sense. The king here accuses them of more dis- 
graceful cunning, since the Magi have nothing to offer, and 
so desire to escape as soon as they know that the king has 
lost all remembrance of his dream. It is just as if he had 
said—You promised me to be sure interpreters of my dream, 
but this is false; for if I could narrate the dream, it would 
be easy to prove your arrogance, since ye cannot explain 
that enigma ; but as ye know I have forgotten my dream, for 
that reason ye ask me to relate it; but this is only to gain 
time, says he; thus ye manage to conceal your ignorance 
and retain your credit for knowledge. But if my dream still 
remained in my memory I should soon detect your ignorance, 
for ye cannot perform your boasting. We see, therefore, how 
the king here loads the Magi with a new crime, because 
they were impostors who deluded the people with false 
boastings ; and hence he shews them worthy of death, unless 
they relate his dream. The argument indeed is utterly 
Vicious ; but it is not surprising when tyrants appear in the 
true colours of their cruelty. Meanwhile we must remem- 
ber what I have said,—the Magi deserved this reproof, 
for they were puffed up with vanity and made false promises, 
through conjecturing the future from dreams, auguries, and 

VOL. I. I 


130 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, Vo 


the like. But in the king’s case, nothing was more unjust 
than to invent such a crime against the Magi, since if they 
deceived others it arose from being self-deceived. They 
were blinded and fascinated by the foolish persuasion of 





their own wisdom, and had no intention of deceiving the — 
king; for they thought something might immediately oceur — 
which would free his mind from all anxiety. But the — 


king always pursued the blindest impulse of his rage. Mean- 


while we must notice the origin of this feeling,—he was 


divinely tormented, and could not rest a single moment till 
he obtained an explanation of his dream. He next adds, 
Tf ye do not explain my dream, this sentence alone remains 
for you, says he; that is, it is already decreed concerning 
you all, I shall not inquire particularly which of you is in 
fault and which wishes to deceive me ; but I will utterly cut 
off all the tribe of the Magi, and no one shall escape punish- 
ment, unless ye explain to me both the dream and its in- 
terpretation. 

He adds again, Ye have prepared a fallacious and corrupt 
speech to relate here before me, as your excuse. Again, the 
king charges them with fraud and malice, of which they 
were not guilty; as if he had said, they purposely sought 
specious pretences for practising deceit. But he says, a lying 
speech, or fallacious and corrupt ; that is, yours is a stale 
excuse, as we commonly say, and I loathe it. If there’were 
any colourable pretext I might admit what ye say, but I see 
in your words nothing but fallacies, and those too which 
savour of corruption. Now, therefore, we observe the king 
not only angry because the Magi cannot relate his dream, 
but charging it against them, as a greater crime, that they 
brought a stale excuse and wished purposely to deceive him. 
He next adds, tell me the dream and then I shall know tt ; 
or then I shall know that ye can faithfully interpret its 
meaning. Here the king takes up another argument to 
convict the Magi of cunning. Ye boast, indeed, that you 
have no difficulty in interpreting the dream. How can ye 
be confident of this, for the dream itself is still unknown to 
you? IfI had told it you, ye might then say whether ye 
could explain it or not ; but when I now ask you about the 





| OHAP. 15. 10. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 131 
dream of which both you and I are ignorant, ye say, when I 
have related the dream, the rest is in your power; I there- 
fore shall prove you to be good and true interpreters of 
dreams if ye can tell me mine, since the one thing depends 
on the other, and ye are too rash in presuming upon what 
is not yet discovered. Since, therefore, ye burst forth so 


hastily, and wish to persuade me that ye are sure of the 
interpretation, you are evidently quite deceived in this 


_ because ye are clearly deceiving me. 





respect ; and your rashness and fraud are herein detected, 
This is the substance 
—the rest to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since during our pilgrimage in this world 
we have daily need of the teaching and government of thy Spirit, 
that with true modesty we may depend on thy word and secret in- 
spiration, and not take too much on ourselves,—Grant, also, that 
we may be conscious of our ignorance, blindness, and stupidity, 
and always flee to thee, and never permit ourselves to be drawn 
aside in any way by the cunning of Satan and of the ungodly. 
May we remain so fixed in thy truth as never to turn aside from 
it, whilst thou dost direct us through the whole course of our 
vocation, and then may we arrive at that heavenly glory which 
has been obtained for us through the blood of thine only begot- 
ten Son.—Amen. 


Hecture Sixth. 


10. The Chaldeans answered be- 


_ fore the king, and said, There is 


not a man upon the earth that can 
shew the king’s matter: therefore 
there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that 
asked such things at any magician, 
or astrologer, or Chaldean. 


10. Responderunt Chaldeei coram 
rege, et dixerunt, Non est homo super 
terram qui sermonem? regis posset 
explicare ; propterea nullus rex, 
princeps, vel prefectus rem consimi- 
lem exquisivit ab ullo mago, et as- 
trologo, et Chaldeeo. 


Tue Chaldeans again excuse themselves for not relating 


the king’s dream. ‘They say, in reality, this is not their 
peculiar art or science ; and they know of no example handed 


: ~ down of wise men being asked in this way, and required to 


answer as well de facto as de jure, as the phrase is. They 


1 Or, the matter.— Calvin. 





132 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VI. 


boasted themselves to be interpreters of dreams, but their con- 
jectures could not be extended to discover the dreams them- 
selves, but only their interpretation. This was a just excuse, 
yet the king does not admit it, but is impelled by his own 
wrath and by the divine instinct to shew the Magi, and sor- 
cerers, and astrologers, to be mere impostors and deceivers of 
the people. And we must observe the end in view, because 
God wished to extol his servant Daniel, and to separate him 
from the common herd. They add, that no kings had ever 
dealt thus with Magi and wise men. It afterwards fol- 
lows :-— 

11, And it is a rare thing that 11. Et sermo de quo rex inquirit 
the king requireth; and there isnone _pretiosus est ;! et nullus est qui pos- 
other that can shew it before the sit exponere coram rege, nisi dii, quo- 
king, except the gods, whose dwell- rum habitatio cum carne non est 
ing is not with flesh. ipsis.? 

They add, that the object of the king’s inquiry surpassed 
the power of human ingenuity. There is no doubt that they 
were slow to confess this, because, as we said before, they 
had acquired the fame of such great wisdom, that the com- 
mon people thought nothing unknown to them or concealed 
from them. And most willingly would they have escaped 
the dire necessity of confessing their ignorance in this 
respect, but in their extremity they were compelled to re- 
sort to this subterfuge. There may be a question why they 
thought the matter about which the king inquired was pre- 
cious ; for as they were ignorant of the king’s dream, how 
could they ascertain its value? But it is not surprising that 
men, under the influence of extreme anxiety and fear, should 
utter anything without judgment. They say, therefore,— 
this matter is precious ; thus they mingle flattery with their 
excuses to mitigate the king’s anger, hoping to escape the 
unjust death which was at hand. The matter of which the 
king inquires ts precious; and yet it would probably be 
said, since the matter was uncommon, that the dream was 
divinely sent to the king, and was afterwards suddenly buried 
in oblivion. There certainly was some mystery here, and 


_ 1} Or, rare.—Calvin. 
* Many words are superfiuous, through the nature of the language.— 
Calvin. 








CHAP. II. 12. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 133 


hence the Chaldeans very reasonably considered the whole 
subject to surpass in magnitude the common measure of 
_ human ability ; therefore they add,—there cannot be any 
_ other interpreters than gods or angels. Some refer this to 
__ angels, but we know the Magi to have worshipped a multitude 
_ of gods. Hence it is more simple to explain this of the 
crowd of deities which they imagined. They had, indeed, 
lesser gods; for among all nations a persuasion has existed 
_ concerning a supreme God who reigns alone. Afterwards 
they imagined inferior deities, and each fabricated a god for 
himself according to his taste. Hence they are called “ gods,” 
according to common opinion and usage, although they ought 
rather to be denoted genii or demons of the air. For we 
know that all unbelievers were imbued with this opinion 
concerning the existence of intermediate deities. The Apos- 
tles contended strongly against this ancient error, and we 
know the books of Plato’ to be full of the doctrine that 
demons or genii act as mediators between man and the 
Heavenly Deity. 

We may, then, suitably understand these words that the 
Chaldeans thought angels the only interpreters ; not because 
they imagined angels as the Scriptures speak of them clearly 
and sincerely, but the Platonic doctrine flourished among 
them, and also the superstition about the genii who dwell in 
heaven, and hold familiar intercourse with the supreme God. 
Since men are clothed in flesh, they cannot so raise them- 
selves towards heaven as to perceive all secrets. Whence it 
follows, that the king acted unjustly in requiring them to 
discharge a duty either angelic or divine. This excuse was 
indeed probable, but the king’s ears were deaf because he 
was carried away by his passions, and God also spurred him 
on by furies, which allowed him no rest. Hence this savage 


conduct which Daniel records. 


12. For this cause the king was 12. Propterea rex in ira et in- 


: angry and very furious, and com- dignatione magna edixit ut in- 
__manded to destroy all the wise men terficerent omnes sapientes Baby- 
_ of Babylon. lonis. 





+A most interesting and singular allegory on this subject occurs in 
Plato’s Phedrus, edit. Bekker, § 51; edit. Priestley, (Lond., 1826,) p.71, 
et seq.; see also Cic. Tusc. Quest. 1. 16; Aristot. Metaph. i.5; and De 


anima, i. 2; Diog. Laert., viii 83. 








134 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VI. 

The former denunciation was horrible, but now Nebuchad- 
nezzar proceeds beyond it; for he not merely threatens the 
Chaldeans with death, but commands it to be inflicted. Such 
an example is scarcely to be found in history ; but the cause 
of his wrath must be noticed, since God wished his servant 
Daniel to be brought forward and to be observed by all men. 
This was the preparation by which it became generally eyi- 
dent that the wise men of Babylon were proved vain, 
through promising more than they could perform; even 
if they had been endowed with the greatest wisdom, they 
would still have been destitute of that gift of revelation 
which was conferred upon Daniel. Hence it happened that 
the king denounced death against them all by his edict ; for 
he might then perhaps acknowledge what he had never 
perceived before, namely, that their boasting was nothing 
but vanity, and their arts full of superstitions. For when 
superstition fails of success, madness immediately suc- 
ceeds, and when those who are thought and spoken of as 
remarkably devout, perceive their fictitious worship to be of 
no avail, then they burst forth into the madness which 
I have mentioned, and curse their idols, and detest what 
they had hitherto followed. So it occurred here, when 
Nebuchadnezzar suspected imposture in so serious a mat- 
ter, and no previous suspicion of it had entered his mind ; 
but now, when he sees through the deception, in so per- 
plexing a case, and in such great anxiety, when left desti- 
tute of the advice of those from whom he hoped all things, 
then he is a hundredfold more infuriated than if he had 
been previously in a state of perfect calmness. It after- 
wards follows :— 

13. And the decree went forth 


that the wise men should be slain; 
and they sought Daniel and his fel- 
lows to be slain. 

14. Then Daniel answered with 
council and wisdom to Arioch the 
captain of the king’s guard, which 
was gone forth to slay the wise men 
of Babylon: 

15. He answered and said to 
Arioch the king’s captain, Why is 


13. Et edictum exiit et sapien- 
tes interficiebantur: et queerebant 
Daniel et socios ejus ad interficien- 
dum. 

14. Et tune Daniel sciscitatus 
est de consilio et edicto ab Arioclk 
principe satellitum regis, qui exie- 
rat ad interficiendum sapientes Ba. 
bylonis. 

15. Respondit et dixit ipsi Ari 
och preefecto' regis, Ad quid edic 


1 Tt is the same noun which was lately used.— Calvin, 

















; poe. un. 13-15. 


«@ 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 135 






_the decree so hasty from the king? tum festinat @ conspectu regis? 
hen Arioch made the thing known Tunc rem!’ patefecit Arioch ipsi 


to Daniel. Danieli. 


It appears from these words that some of the wise men 
had been slain, for Daniel at first is not required for slaugh- 
ter; but when the Magi and Chaldeans were promiscuously 
dragged out for aeehient. Daniel and his companions were 


F in the same danger. And this is clearly expressed thus— 


_ when the edict had gone forth, that is, was published, according 
to the Latin phrase, and the wise men were slain, then Daniel 
was also sought for; because the king would never suffer 


his decree to ‘be despised after it had once been published ; 
for if he had publicly commanded this to be done, and no 
__ execution had been added, would not this have been ridi- 
_ culous? Hence, very probably, the slaughter of the Magi 
and Chaldeans was extensive. Although the king had no 


lawful reason for his conduct, yet they deserved their punish- 


q _ ment; for, as we said yesterday, they deserved to be exter- 


minated from the world, and the pest must be removed if it 
could possibly be accomplished. If Nebuchadnezzar had been 
like David, or Hezekiah, or Josiah, he might most justly have 


. Eo destroyed them all, apd ‘have purged the land from such de- 
____ filements; but as he was only carried away by the fervour 


of his Seth, he was himself in fault. Meanwhile, God justly 


q ] punishes the Chaldeans, and this admonition ought to profit 
the whole people. They were hardened in their error, and 
____were doubtless rendered more excuseless by being blinded 


against such a judgment of God. Because Daniel was con- 
demned to death, though he had not been called by the 


& king, the injustice of the edicts of those kings who do not 


inquire into the causes of which they are judges, becomes 
more manifest. 
Nebuchadnezzar had often heard of Daniel, and had been 


compelled to admire the dexterity of his genius, and the 


singular gift of his wisdom. How comes it, then, that he 
passed him by when he had need of his singular skill? 


Although the king anxiously inquires concerning the dream, 
_ yet we observe he does not act seriously; since it would 


1 Or, discourse. —Calvin. 











186 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VI. 


doubtless have come into his mind, “Behold, thou hadst for- 
merly beheld in the captives of Judah the incredible gift of 
celestial wisdom—then, in the first place, send for them!” 
Here the king’s sloth is detected because he did not send 
for Daniel among the rest. We have stated this to be 
governed by the secret providence of God, who was unwilling 
that his servant should mix with those ministers of Satan, 
whose whole knowledge consisted in juggling and errors. We 
now see how the king had neglected the gift of God, and 
had stifled the light offered to him; but Daniel is next 
dragged to death. Therefore, I said, that tyrants are, for 
this reason, very unjust, and exercise a cruel violence because 
they will not undertake the labour and trouble of inquiry. 
Meanwhile we see that God wonderfully snatches his own 
people from the jaws of death, as it happened in Daniel’s 
case ; for we may be surprised at Arioch sparing his life 
when he slew the others who were natives. How can we ac- 
count for Daniel meeting with more humanity than the Chal- 
deans, though he was a foreigner and a captive? Because 
his life was in the hand and keeping of God, who restrained 
both the mind and the hand of the prefect from being imme- 
diately savage with him. But it is said—Daniel inquired 
concerning the counsel and the edict. Some translate pru- 
dently and cunningly: and NOY, gneta, signifies “ prudence,” 
just as EY, tegnem, metaphorically is received for “ intelli- 
gence” when it signifies taste.’ But we shall afterwards 
find this latter word used for an edict, and because this 
sense appears to suit better, I therefore adopt it, as Daniel 
had inquired of the prefect the meaning of the edict 
and the king’s design. Arioch also is called the Prince of 
Satellites. Some translate it of executioners, and others of 
cooks, for M310, tebech, signifies “to slay,” but the noun de- 
duced from this means a cook. Thus Potiphar is called, to 
whom Joseph was sold. (Gen. xxxix. 1.) It seems to 
me a kind of absurdity to call him the prince of gaolers ; 
and if we say the prefect of cooks, it is equally unsuitable 
to his office of being sent to slay the Chaldeans. I therefore 


1 So translated in Auth. Vers., Exod. xvi. 31; Num. xi. 8; Job vi. 
6; and Jer. xlviii. 11. 












































= 
cuap. 11. 16. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 137 


prefer interpreting it more mildly, supposing him to be the 
a refect of the guards ; for, as I have said, Potiphar is called 
M3 A, reb tebechim, and here the pronunciation only is 
emicred. It follows: 

_ Daniel also had said, Whither does the edict hasten from be- 
*e the king ? It seems by these words, that Daniel obliquely 
ames the king’s anger and ingratitude, because he did not 
inquire with sufficient diligence before he rushed forward to 
; cruel punishment. Then he seems to mark his ingrati- 
” de, since he is now undeservedly doomed to death without 
being sent for, though the king might have known what was 
-inhim. As he refers to beuke I do not doubt his expostu- 
ins with the king, since he was neither called for nor 
istened to, and yet was to be slain with the rest, as if he 
ere guilty of the same fault as the Chaldeans. The con- 
ea clusion is,—there was no reason for such haste, since the 
_ king would probably find what he desired, if he inquired more 
4 liligently. It is afterwards added, Avhotdh explained the 
_ matier to Daniel. Whence it appears that Daniel was for- 
ot merly ignorant of the whole matter; and hence we may 
con onjecture the amount of the terror whiel seized upon the 
ious man. For he had known nothing about it, and was 
®g led to punishment suddenly and unexpectedly, as if he had 
_ been guilty. Hence, it was necessary for him to be divinely 
¢ strengthened, that he might with composure seek the pro- 
E pe er time from both the pnebats and the king, for relating the 
dream and adding its interpretation. Daniel’s power of 
acting so pea pesédiy, arose from God’s singular gift, since 
| “terror would otherwise have seized on his sak: for we are 
a4 aware that in sudden events, we become demived of all plan, 
; ge lose our presence of mind. Since nothing of this kind 
as perceived in Daniel, it becomes clear that his mind was 
Beyerned by God’s Spirit. It is afterwards added— 


oe 16. Then Daniel went in, and desired 16. Et. Daniel ingressus est, 
of the king that he would give him time, et postulavit a rege, rut tempus 
r nd that he would shew the king the in- daret sibi, et expositionem! af- 
erpretation. ferret regi. 


This verse contains nothing new, unless we must notice 
y what is not expressed, namely, that the prefect was not en- 


1 Interpretation.— Culvin. 














A Oe el ee 


ed Oe ee 





138 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VI. 


tirely without fear in giving Daniel an introduction to the 
king. For he knew the king to be very angry, and 
himself under serious displeasure, for not immediately 
executing the edict. But, as we have already said, God 
had taken Daniel into his confidence, and so bends and 
tames the mind of the prefect, that he no longer hesi- 
tates to introduce Daniel to the king. Another point is 
also gathered from the context, namely, Daniel’s obtain- 
ing his request ; for it is said, he returned home, doubt- 
less, because he obtained a single day from the king with 
the view of satisfying his demands on the next day. And 
yet it is surprising that this favour was granted, since the 
king wished the dream narrated to him immediately. 
Although Daniel does not here relate the reasons which 
he used with the king, yet most probably he confessed 
what we shall afterwards observe in its own place, name- 
ly, that he was not endued with sufficient intelligence 
to expound the dream, but hoping in God’s kindness, he 
would return next day with a new revelation. Otherwise 
the king would never have permitted this, if Daniel had pe- 
titioned doubtfully ; or if he had not borne witness to his 
hopes of some secret revelation from God, he would have 
been rejected immediately, and would have provoked stiil 
further the anger of the king. The Hebrews very commonly 
mention afterwards, in the context, whatever they omit in 
its proper place. So when he modestly confesses his ina- 
bility to satisfy the king, till he has received from the Lord 
a faithful message, the king grants him the required time, 
as we shall see more clearly afterwards. It follows— — 


17. Then Daniel went to his house, 17. Tune Daniel in domum 
‘andmade the thing known to Hana- venit,! et Hananiz, et Misaeli, 
niah, Mishae], and Azariah, his com- et Azariz sociis suis sermonem 
panions : patefecit. 

18. That they would desire mercies of 18. Et misericordias ad pe- 
the God of heaven concerning this se- tendum*® a facie Dei ecelorum 
cret; that Daniel and his fellows should super arcano hoe, ut ne interfi- 
not perish with the rest of the wise men cerentur Danielet socii ejuscum 
of Babylon. residuo sapientum Babylonis.* 


* Departed.—Calvin. ? Or, the matter.—Calvin. 
* Verbally, to implore merey.— Calvin. 
* That is, with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.—Calvin. 





















OHAP.11.17,18. | COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 1389 












~ Weobserve with what object and with what confidence Daniel 
emanded an extension of time. His object was to implore 
God’s grace. Confidence was also added, since he perceived 

» dot uble punishment awaiting him, if he disappointed the 
king 5 if he had returned the next day without a reply, 
‘* ing would not have been content with an easy death, 

A t would have raged with cruelty against Daniel, in conse- 
quence of his deception. Without the slightest doubt, 
niel expected what he obtained—namely, that the king’s 

eam would be revealed to him. He therefore urges his 
companions to implore unitedly mercy from God. Daniel 
: already obtained the singular gift of being an interpre- 
_ ter of dreams, and as we have seen, he alone was a Prophet 
f God. God was accustomed to avaiice his intentions to 

is Prophets by dreams or visions, (Numb. xii. 6,) and Da- 

7 ie had obtained both. Since Misael, Hananiah, and Aza- 
: viah were united with him in prayer, we gather that they 
were not induced by ambition, to desire anything for 
~ themselves ; for if they had been rivals of Daniel, they could 
not have prayed in concord with him. They did not pray 
|S about their own private concerns, but only for the interpre- 
k tation of the dream being made known to Daniel. We 
q observe, too, how sincer ely they agree in their prayers, how 
| all pride and ambition is laid aside, and without any desire 
for their own advantage. Besides, it is worthy of notice 
why they are said to have desired mercy from God. A\l- 
_ though they do not here come into God’s presence as crimi- 
nals, yet they hoped their request would be graciously 
4 granted, and hence the word “merey” is used. Whenever 
__we fiy to God to bring assistance to our necessities, our eyes 
and all our senses ought always to be turned towards his 
_ mercy, for his mere good-will reconciles him to us. When 
q ‘it i is said, at the close of the verse,—they should not perish 
“with the rest of the wise men of Babylon, some explain this, 
as if they had been anxious about the life of the Magi, and 
Diched to snatch them also from death. But although they 
wished all persons to be safe, clearly enough they here 
separate themselves from the Magi and Chaldeans; their 
4q conduct was far different. It now follows— 





140 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VI. 


19. Then was the secret revealed unto —_‘:19. Tune Danieliinvisionenoe- 
Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel tisarcanumpatefactumest: tune 
blessed the God of heaven. Daniel benedixit Deum ceeli. 

Here it may be gathered, that Daniel did not vacillate nor 
pray with his companions through any doubt upon his mind. 
For that sentence of James ought to come into our memory, 
namely, Those who hesitate, and tremble, and pray to God 
with diffidence, are unworthy of being heard. Let not such 
a one, says James, think he shall obtain anything from 
the Lord, if he is driven about variously like the waves of 
the sea. (Chap. i. 6.) As God, therefore, shewed himself 
propitious to the prayers of Daniel, we conclude him to have 
prayed with true faith, and to be clearly persuaded that 
his life was in God’s hands ; hence, also, he felt that God did 
not vainly harass the mind of King Nebuchadnezzar, but was 
preparing some signal and remarkable judgment for him. 
Because Daniel was imbued with this firm persuasion, he 
exercises a sure confidence, and prays to God as if he had 
already obtained his request. On the other hand, we per- 
ceive that God never closes his ears when rightly and cor- 
dially invoked, as also it is said in the Psalms, (exly. 18,) 
He is near to all who pray to him in truth; for there can- 
not be truth when faith is wanting; but as Daniel brought 
faith and sincerity to his prayers, he was listened to, and 
the secret concerning the dream was made known to him in 
a vision by night. I cannot now proceed any further. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we are in danger every day and every 
moment, not merely from the cruelty of a single tyrant, but from 
the devil, who exvites the whole world against us, arming the 
princes of this world, and impelling them to destroy us,—Grant, 
I pray thee, that we may feel and demonstrate, by experience, 
that our life is in thy hand, and that under thy faithful guardian- 
ship thou wilt not suffer one hair of our heads to fall. Do thou 
also so defend us, that the impious themselves may acknowledge 

that we do not boast this day in vain in thy name, nor invoke 
thee without success. And when we have experienced thy pa- 
ternal anxiety, through the whole course of our life, may we ar- 
rive at that blessed immortality which thou hast promised us, 
and which is laid up for us in heaven, through Jesus Christ our 
Lord.—Amen. : ° 








CMAP. 11. 20. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 141 


HLecture Seventh. 


_ 20. Daniel answered and said, 20. Loquutusest! Daniel et dixit, 
Blessed be the name of God for Sit nomen Deibenedicitum aseculo 
ever and ever: for wisdom and might et in seculum: ejus est sapientia, 
are his. et robur ipsius.? 


Dantet here pursues his narrative, and thanks God after 
King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream had been made known to 
him, while he relates the sense of the words which he had 
used. May God’s name be blessed, says he, from age to age. 
We ought daily to wish for this; for when we pray that 
God’s name may be hallowed, continuance is denoted under 
this form of prayer. But Daniel here breaks forth into the 
praises of God with greater vehemence, because he acknow- 
ledges his singular benefit in being snatched away from 
death, together with his companions, beyond his expecta- 
tion. Whenever God confers any remarkable blessing on 
his servants, they are the more stirred up to praise him, 
as David says, (Psalm xl. 3,) Thou hast put a new song into 
my mouth. And Isaiah also uses this form of speech twice, 
(chap. xlii. 10,) as if God had given him material for a 
new and unusual song, in dealing so wonderfully with his 
Church, So also, there is no doubt that Daniel here wished 
to praise God in a remarkable manner, since he had received 
a rare proof of his favour in being delivered from instant 
death. Afterwards he adds, whose (or since his) ts the wis- 
dom and the strength ; for the relative is here taken for the 
causal particle, and the sentence ought to be so expressed ; 
the additional particles may avail to strengthen the expres- 
sion, and be taken exclusively, as if he had said,—to God 
alone ought the praise of wisdom and virtue to be ascribed. 
Without him, indeed, both are sought in vain; but these 
graces do not seem to suit the present purpose; for Daniel 
ought rather to celebrate God’s praises, through this vision 
being opened, and this was enough to content him. But he 
may here speak of God’s glory as well from his power as his 

! Verbally, answered. —Calvin. | 


® These particles are superfluous: there is nothing obscure in the sense. 
—Calvin. 





142 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, VII. 


wisdom ; as, where Scripture wishes to distinguish the true 
God from all fictions, it takes these two principles—first, 
God governs all things by his own hand, and retains them 
under his sway; and secondly, nothing is hid from him 
—and these points cannot be separated when his majesty is 
to be proved. We see mankind fabricating deities for them- 
selves, and thus multiplying gods, and distributing to each 
his own office; because they cannot rest in simple unity, 
when God is treated of. Some fancy God retains but half his 
attributes ; as for instance, the praters about bare foreknow- - 
ledge. They admit nothing to be hidden to God, and his 
knowledge of all things; and this they prove by the pro- 
phecies which occur in the Scriptures. What they say is 
true; but they very much lessen the glory of God; nay, 
they tear it to pieces by likening him to Apollo, whose office 
it formerly was, in the opinion of the heathen, to predict 
future events. When they sought predictions of future 
events, they endued Apollo with the virtue of making known 
to them future occurrences. Many at the present time think 
God able to foresee all things, but suppose him either to 
dissemble or purposely withdraw from the government of 
the world. 

Lastly, Their notion of God’s foreknowledge is but a 
cold and idle speculation. Hence I said, they rob God of 
half his glory, and, as far as they can, tear him to pieces. 
But Scripture, when it wishes to assert what is peculiar to 
God, joins these two things inseparably ; first, God fore- 
sees all things, since nothing is hidden from his eyes; and 
next, he appoints future events, and governs the world 
by his will, allowing nothing to happen by chance or with- 
out his direction. Daniel here assumes this principle, 
or rather unites the two, by asserting Israel’s God alone 
to deserve the name, since both wisdom and strength are 
in his power. We must remember how God is defrauded 
of his just praise, when we do not connect these two attri- 
butes together—his universal foresight and his government 
of the world allowing nothing to happen without his per- 
mission. But as it would be too cold to assert that to God 
alone belongs wisdom and strength, unless his wisdom was 














CHAP. 11.21. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 143 


conspicuous, and his strength openly acknowledged, hence 
it follows immediately afterwards— 


21. And he changeth the times and 21. Et ipse'mutat tempora, et 
the seasons: he removeth kings, andset- articulos temporum: constituit 
teth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto regeset admovet reges: dat sapi- 
the wise, and knowledge to them that entiam sapientibus, et scientiam 
know understanding. iis qui scientiam cognoscunt.? 


Daniel explains, in these words, what might have been ob- 
scure ; for he teaches God to be the true fountain of wisdom 
and virtue, while he does not confine them to himself alone, 
but diffuses them through heaven and earth. And we must 
mark this diligently ; for when Paul affirms God alone to 
be wise, this praise does not seem magnificent enough, (Rom. 
Xvi. 27;) but when we think of God’s wisdom, and set be- 
fore our eyes all around and about us, then we feel more 
strongly the import of Paul’s words, that God only is wise. 
_God, therefore, as I have already stated, does not keep his 
wisdom confined to himself, but makes it flow throughout 
the whole world. The full sense of the verse is,—what- 
ever wisdom and power exists in the world, is a testimony 
to the Almighty’s. This is man’s ingratitude ; whenever they 
find anything worthy of praise in themselves or others, they 
claim it directly as their own, and thus God’s glory is di- 
minished by the depravity of those who obtain their bless- 
ings from him. We are here taught not to detract anything 
from God’s wisdom and power, since wherever these quali- 
ties are conspicuous in the world, they ought rather to reflect 
his glory. We now perceive the Prophet’s meaning—God 
places before our eyes, as in a glass, the proofs of his wisdom 
and power, when the affairs of the world roll on, and man- 
kind become powerful through wisdom, and some are raised 
on high, and others fall to the ground. Experience teaches 
us these events do not proceed from human skill, or through 
the equable course of nature, while the loftiest kings are 
east down and others clevated to the highest posts of 
honour. Daniel, therefore, admonishes us not to seek in 
heaven alone for God’s wisdom and power, since it is ap- 
parent to us on earth, and proofs of it are daily presented 


- 1 Or, it is he who.—Calvin. 
® That is, to those who are skilled in science.— Calvin. 





144 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VII. 


to our observation. We now see how these two verses are 
mutually united. He had stated wisdom to belong ex- 
clusively to God; he now shews that it is not hidden 
within him, but is made manifest to us; and we may per- 
ceive by familiar experience, how all wisdom flows from 
him as its exclusive fountain. We ought to feel the same 
concurring power also. 

It is he, then, who changes times and portions of time, 
We know it to be ascribed to fortune when the world passes 
through such uncertain changes that everything is daily 
changing. Hence the profane consider all things to be acted 
on by blind impulse, and others affirm the human race to be 
a kind of sport to God, since men are tossed about like balls. 
But, as I have already said, it is not surprising to find men of 
@ perverse and corrupt disposition thus perverting the object 
of all God’s works. For our own practical improvement we 
should consider what the Prophet is here teaching, how re- 
volutions, as they are called, are testimonies of God’s power, 
and point out with the finger to the truth that the affairs 
of men are ruled by the Most High. For we must of neces- 
sity adopt one or the other of these views, either that nature 
rules over human events, or else fortune turns about in every 
direction, things which ought to have an even course. As 
far as nature is concerned, its course would be even, unless 
God by his singular counsel, as we have seen, thus changes 
the course of the times. Yet those philosophers who assign 
the supreme authority to nature are much sounder than 
others who place fortune in the highest rank. For if we ad- 
mit for a moment this latter opinion that fortune directs hu- 
man affairs by a kind of blind impulse, whence comes this 
fortune? Ifyouask them for a definition, what answer will 
they make? They will surely be compelled to confess this, 
the word “ fortune” explains nothing. But neither God nor 
nature will have any place in this vain and changeable go- 
vernment of the world, where all things throw themselves 
into distinct forms without the least order or connection. 
And if this be granted, truly the doctrine of Epicurus will be 
received, because if God resigns the supreme government of 
the world, so that all things are rashly mingled together, he 











CHAP. 11.2]. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 145 


is no longer God. But in this variety he rather displays 
his hand in claiming for himself the empire over the world. 
In so many changes, then, which meet us on every side, and 
by which the whole face of things is renewed, we must re- 
member that the Providence of God shines forth ; and things 
do not flow on in an even course, because then the peculiar 
property of God might with some shew of reason be ascribed 
to nature. God, I say, so changes empires, and times, and 
seasons, that we should learn to look up to him. If the sun 
always rose and set at the same period, or at least certain 
symmetrical changes took place yearly, without any casual 
change ; if the days of winter were not short, and those of 
summer not long, we might then discover the same order 
of nature, and in this way God would be rejected from 
his own dominion. But when the days of winter not only | 
differ in length from those of summer, but even spring does 
not always retain the same temperature, but is sometimes 
stormy and snowy, and at others warm and genial; and 
since summers are so various, no year being just like the 
former one; since the air is changed every hour, and the 
heavens put on new appearances—when we discern all these 
things, God rouses us up, that we may not grow torpid in 
our own grossness, and erect nature into a deity, and de- 
prive him of his lawful honour, and transfer to our own 
fancy what he claims for himself alone. If then, in these 
ordinary events, we are compelled to acknowledge God’s 
Providence, if any change of greater moment arises, as when 
God transfers empires from one hand to another, and all but 
transforms the whole world, ought we not then to. be the 
more affected, unless we are utterly stupid? Daniel, there- 
fore, very reasonably corrects the perverse opinion which 
commonly seizes upon the senses of all, that the world either 
rolls on by chance, or that nature is the supreme deity, when 
he asserts—God changes times and seasons. 

It is evident from the context, that he is here properly 
speaking of empires, since he appoints and removes kings. 
We feel great difficulty in believing kings placed upon 
their thrones by a divine power, and afterwards deposed 
again, since we naturally fancy that they acquire their power 

VOL. I. K 





146 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, VII. 


by their own talents, or by hereditary right, or by fortui- 
tous accident. Meanwhile all thought of God is excluded, 
when the industry, or valour, or success, or any other qua- 
lity of man is extolled!’ Hence it is said in the Psalms, 
neither from the east nor the west, but God alone is the 
judge. (Psalm lxxv. 6, 7.) The Prophet there derides the 
discourses of those who call themselves wise, and who ga- 
ther up reasons from all sides to shew how power is assigned 
to man, by either his own counsel and valour, or by good for- 
tune or other human and inferior instruments. Look round, 
says he, wherever you please, from the rising to the setting 
of the sun, and you will find no reason why one man 
becomes lord of his fellow-creatures rather than another. 
God alone is the judge; that is, the government must re- 
main entirely with the one God. So also in this passage, 
the Lord is said to appoint kings, and to raise them from the 
rest of mankind as he pleases. As this argument is a most 
important one, it might be treated more copiously ; but since 
the same opportunity will occur in other passages, I com- 
ment but shortly on the contents of this verse; for we shall 
often have to treat of the state of kingdoms and of their 
ruin and changes. I am therefore unwilling to add any- 
thing more at present, as it is sufficient to explain Daniel's 
intention thus briefly. 

He afterwards adds,—he gives wisdom to the wise, and 
knowledge to those who are endued with it. In this second 
clause, the Prophet confirms what we have already said, that 
God’s wisdom is not shrouded in darkness, but is manifested 
to us, as he daily gives us sure and remarkable proofs of 
this. Meanwhile he here corrects the ingratitude of men 
who assume to themselves the praise of their own excellen- 
cies which spring from God, and thus become almost saecri- 
legious. Daniel, therefore, asserts that men have no wisdom 
but what springs from God. Men are, indeed, clever and 
intelligent, but the question arises, whether it springs from 
themselves?) He also shews us how mankind are to be 
blamed in claiming anything as their own, since they have 
really nothing belonging to them, however they may be 
wrapt in admiration of themselves. Who then will boast 





CHAP. II. 22. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 147 


of becoming wise by his own innate strength? Has he 
originated the intellect with which he is endowed? Be- 
cause God is the sole author of wisdom and knowledge, the 
gifts by which he has adorned men ought not to obscure his 
glory, but rather to illustrate it. He afterwards adds— 


22. Herevealeth the deep and secret 22. Ipse patefeeit profunda et 
things: he knoweth what is inthe dark- abscondita: eognoscit quod in te- 
ness, and the light dwelleth with him. nebris,' et lux cum eo habitat.? 

He pursues the same sentiment, and confirms it,—that all 
mortals receive from God’s Spirit whatever intelligence and 
light they enjoy; but he proceeds a step further in this 
verse than in the last. He had said generally, that men re- 
ceive wisdom and understanding by God’s good will; but 
here he speaks specially ; for when a man’s understanding 
is rare and unusual, there God’s gift shines forth more 
_ clearly ; as if he had said—God not only distributes to every 
one according to the measure of his own liberality, whatever 
acuteness and ingenuity they possess, but he adorns some 
with such intelligence that they appear as his interpreters. 
He speaks, therefore, here, specially of the gift of prophecy ; 
as if he had said, God’s goodness is conspicuous, not only in 
the ordinary prudence of mankind, for no one is so made as 
to be unable to discover between justice and injustice, and 
to form some plan for regulating his life; but in Prophets 
there is something extraordinary, which renders God’s wis- 
dom more surprising. Whence, then, do Prophets obtain the 
power of prophesying concerning hidden events, and pene- 
trating above the heavens, and surpassing all bounds? -Is 
this common to all men? Surely this far exceeds the ordi- 
nary ability of man, while the Prophet here teaches that 
God’s beneficence and power deserve more praise, because 
he reveals hidden and secret things ; and in this sense he 
adds—light dwells with God; as if he had said,—God 
differs very much from us, since we are involved in many 
clouds and mists; but to God all things are clear; he has 
no occasion to hesitate, or inquire, and has no need to be 
hindered through ignorance. Now, we fully understand the 
Prophet’s meaning. 


® Lies hid.— Calvin. 2 Or, in his power. - Calvin. 





148 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VII. 


Let us learn from this passage to attribute to God that 
praise which the greater part of the world claims to itself with 
sacrilegious audacity, though God shews it to belong to him- 
self. Whatever understanding or judgment we may possess, 
we should remember that it was first received from God. 
Hence, also, if we have but a small portion of common sense, 
we are still equally indebted to God, for we should be like 
stocks or stones unless by his secret instinct he endued us 
with understanding. But if any one excels others, and ob- 
tains the admiration of all men, he ought still modestly to 
submit himself to God, and acknowledge himself the more 
bound to him, because he has received more than others. 
For who knows himself fully but God? The more, therefore, 
he excels in understanding, the more he will lay aside all 
claims of his own, and extol the beneficence of God. Third- 
ly, let us learn that the understanding of spiritual things is 
arare and singular gift of the Holy Spirit, in which God’s 
power shines forth conspicuously. Let us guard against 
that diabolical pride by which we see almost the whole 
world to be swollen and intoxicated. And in this respect 
we should chiefly glorify God, as he has not only adorned 
us with ordinary foresight, enabling us to discern between 
good and evil, but raised us above the ordinary level of 
human nature, and so enlightened us that we can understand 
things far exceeding our capacities. When Daniel pronounces 
light to be with God, we must supply a tacit antithesis ; since 
he indicates, as I have already said, that men are surrounded 
by thick darkness, and grope about in obscurity. The habi- 
tation of men is here obliquely contrasted with the sanctu- 
ary of God; as if the Prophet had said, there is no pure and 
perfect light but in God alone. Hence, when we remain in 
our natural state, we must necessarily wander in darkness, 
or at least be obscured by many clouds. These words natu- 
rally lead us not to rest satisfied in our own position, but to 
seek from God that light in which he only dwells. Meanwhile, 
we should remember how God dwells in light unapproachable, 
(1 Tim. vi. 16,) unless he deigns to stretch forth his hand 
to us. Hence, if we desire to become partakers of this divine 
light, let us be on our guard against audacity, and mind- 





CHAP. II. 23. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 149 


ful of our ignorance ; let us seek God’s illumination. Thus 
his light will not be inaccessible to us, when, by his Spirit, 
he shall conduct us beyond the skies. He afterwards 
adds— ‘ 


23. I thank thee, and praise thee, O 23. Tibi confiteor, Deus patrum 
thou God of my fathers, who hast given meorum et laudo ego,' qui dedisti 
me wisdom and might, and hast made mihi sapientiam et robur, et nunc 
known unto me now what we desired notificasti mihi quee postulavimus 
of thee: for thou hast now made known abs te; qui negotium? regis pate- 
unto us the king’s matter. fecisti nobis. 


Daniel turns his discourse to God. J confess to thee, says 
he, O God of my fathers, and praise thee. Here he more 
openly distinguishes the God of the Israelites from all the 
fictions of the nations. Nor does he use this epithet in 
vain, when he praises the God of his fathers ; for he wishes 
to reduce to nothing all the fabrications of the Gentiles con- 
cerning a multitude of deities. Daniel rejects this as a 
vain and foolish thing, and shews how the God of Israel 
alone is worthy of praise. But he does not found the glory 
of God on the authority of their fathers, as the Papists, 
when they wish to ascribe the supreme power to either 
George, or Catharine, or any others, count up the number of 
ages during which the error has prevailed. Thus they wish 
whatever the consent of mankind has approved to be received 
asoracular. Butif religion depended on the common consent 
of mankind, where would be its stability? We know nothing 
vainer than the minds of men. If man is weighed, says the 
Prophet, with vanity in a balance, vanity itself will prepon- 
derate. (Psalm Ilxii. 9.) Nothing, therefore, is more fool- 
ish than this principle of this king,—what has prevailed by 
the consent of many ages must be religiously true. But here 
Daniel partially commends the God of their fathers, as their 
fathers were the sons of God. For that sacred adoption 
prevailed among the Jews, by which God chose Abraham 
and his whole family for himself. Daniel, therefore, here 
does not extol the persons of men, as if they either could or 
ought to add anything they pleased to God; but this is the 
reason why he says, the God of Israel is the God of their fa- 
thers, since he was of that race which the Almighty had 


* And T also praise thee.—Calvin. 2 Or, question.— Calvin. 


ELL“ bat 


150 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, VII. 


adopted. On the whole, he so opposes the God of Israel to 
all the idols of the Gentiles, that the mark of separation is 
in the covenant itself, and in the celestial doctrine by which 
he revealed himself to the sacred fathers. For while the 
Gentiles have no certain vision, and follow only their own 
dreams, Daniel here deservedly sets forth the God of their 
fathers. 

He afterwards adds, because thou hast given me wisdom 
and strength. As far as relates to wisdom, the reason is 
clear enough why Daniel thanks God, since he had obtained, 
as he soon afterwards says, the revelation of the dream. 
He had also formerly been endued with the prophetic spirit 
and with visions, as he related in the first chapter, (ver. 17.) 
We may here inquire what he means by strength? He was 
not remarkable for his honour among men, nor was he eyer a 
commander in military affairs, and he had no superior gift 
of magnificent power to cause him to return thanks to God. 
But Daniel regards this as the principal point, that the God 
of Israel was then acknowledged as the true and only God ; 
because, whatever wisdom and virtue exists in the world, 
it flows from him as its only source. For this reason he 
speaks of himself as well as of all others, as if he had said 
—If I have any strength or understanding, I ascribe it all 
to thee; it is thine entirely. And, truly, though Daniel 
was neither a king nor a prefect, yet that unconquered great- 
ness of mind which we have seen was not to be esteemed as 
without value. Hence he very properly acknowledges some- 
thing of this kind to have been conferred upon him by 
heaven. Lastly, his intention is to debase himself and to 
attribute to God his own; but he speaks concisely, as we 
have said, since under the phrases “ power” and “ wisdom” 
he had previously embraced the proof of his divinity. He 
afterwards adds, Thou hast revealed to me what we demanded 
of thee; thow hast made known to us the king's inquiry. 
There seems here a slight discrepancy, as he praises God 
for granting him a revelation of the dream, and then unites 
others to himself. Yet the revelation was not common to 
them, but peculiar to himself. The solution is easy ; for 
he first expresses that this was given to himself specially, 





x 
4 


{ 
4 


a 





CHAP. Ir. 23. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 151 


that he might know the king’s dream and understand its 
interpretation. When he has confessed this, he extends the 
benefit to his companions, and deservedly so; because 
though they did not yet understand what God had conferred 
upon Daniel, yet he had obtained this in their fayour,— 
they were all snatched from death, and all their prayers 
attended to. And this availed very much for the con- 
firmation of their faith, as it assured them they had not 
prayed in vain. For we said that there was no ambition 
in their prayers, as if any one desired any peculiar gift by 
which he might acquire honour and estimation for himself 
in the world. Nothing of the kind. It was enough for 
them to shew forth God’s name among unbelievers; be- 
cause by his kindness, they had been delivered from death. 
Hence Daniel very properly says, the king’s dream was made 
known to him with its interpretation ; and this he will after- 
wards transfer to his companions. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we have so many testimonies to thy 
glory daily before our eyes, though we seem so blind as to shut 
out all the light by our ingratitude; grant, I pray, that we may 
at length learn to open our eyes; yea, do thou open them by thy 
Spirit. May we reftect on the number, magnitude, and import- 
ance of thy benefits towards us; and while thou dost set before 
us the proof of thy eternal divinity, grant that we may become 
proficient in this school of piety. May we learn to aseribe to thee 
the praise of all virtues, till nothing remains but to extol thee 
alone. And the more thou deignest to declare thyself liberal 
towards us, may we the more ardently desire to worship thee. 
May we devote ourselves to thee without reserving the slightest 
self-praise, but caring for this only, that thy glory may remain 
and shine forth throughout all-the world, through Christ our 
Lord.—Amen. 


Hecture Eighth. 


24. Therefore Daniel went in unto 24. Itaque ingressus est Daniel 
Arioch, whom the king had ordained ad Arioch, quem prefecerat rex 
to destroy the wise men of Babylon: ad perdendum' sapientes Baby- 


1 To slay —Calvin. 


152 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VIII. 


he went and said thus unto him, lonis: venit ergo, et sic loquu- 
Destroy not the wise men of Baby- tus est ei, Sapientes Babylonis 
lon: bring me in before the king, ne perdas: introduc me ad re- 
and I will shew unto the king the gem et interpretationem regi in- 
interpretation. dicabo. 

BrrorE Daniel sent his message to the king, as we saw 
yesterday, he discharged the duty of piety as he ought, for 
he testified his gratitude to God for revealing the secret. 
But he now says, that he came to Arioch, who had been sent 
by the king to slay the Magi, and asked him not to kill them, 
for he had a revelation ; of which we shall afterwards treat. 
Here we must notice that some of the Magi were slain, as I 
have said. For after Arioch had received the king’s man- 
date, he would never have dared to delay it even a few days; 
but a delay occurred after Daniel had requested a short 
space of time to be afforded him. Then Arioch relaxed from 
the severity of the king’s order against the Magi; and now 
Daniel asks him to spare the remainder. He seems, indeed, 
to have done this with little judgment, because we ought to 
desire the utter abolition of magical arts, for we saw before 
that they were diabolical sorceries. It may be answered 
thus,—although Daniel, saw many faults and corruptions in 
the Magi and their art, or science, or false pretensions to 
knowledge, yet, since the principles were true, he was un- 
willing to allow what had proceeded from God to be blotted 
out. But it seems to me that Daniel’s object was somewhat 
different, for although the Magi might have been utterly 
destroyed without the slightest difficulty, yet he looks rather 
to the cause, and therefore wished the persons to be spared. 
It will often happen that wicked men are called in question 
as well as those who have deserved a tenfold death; but if 
they are not punished for any just reason, we ought to spare 
their persons, not through their worthiness, but through our 
own habitual sense of equity and rectitude. It is therefore 
probable that Daniel, when he saw the king’s command con- 
cerning the slaughter of the Magi to be so tyrannical, went 
out to meet him, lest they should all be slain with savage 
and cruel violence, without the slightest reason. I there- 
fore think that Daniel spared the Magi, but not through 
any personal regard; he wished them to be safe, but for 





4 
| 


| 





OHAP. 11. 25. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 153 


another purpose, namely, to await their punishment from 
God. Their iniquity was not yet ripe for destruction through 
the indignation of the king. It is not surprising, then, that 
Daniel wished, as far as possible, to hinder this cruelty. It 
afterwards follows,— 


25. Then Ariochbrought in Daniel 25. 'Tune Arioch cum festinatione 
before the king in haste, and said introduxit Danielem ad regem, et 
thus unto him, I have founda man sic locutus est ei, Inveni virum 
of the captives of Judah that will ex filiis captivitatis Jehudah, qui 
make known unto the king the in- interpretationem regi notam fa- 
terpretation. ciet. 


It may here be a question, in what sense Arioch speaks of 
bringing Daniel before the king, as if it were something new. 
For Daniel had already requested from the king time for 
prayer, as we have seen. Why then does Arioch now boast 
of having found a man of the captives of Judah, as if he 
were speaking of an obscure and unknown person? But 
very probably Daniel requested the time for prayer from 
Arioch, since we learn from history how difficult it was to 
approach those kings ; for they thought it a profanation of 
their majesty to be polite and humane. The conjecture, 
therefore, is probable, that Arioch was the channel through 
whom the king granted the time to Daniel ; or, we may sup- 
pose the words of Arioch are not simply related, but that 
Daniel shews the great boasting of courtiers, who always 
praise their own good offices, and adorn them with the 
splendour of words. Hence Arioch reminds the king how 
he had met with Daniel, and had at length obtained what 
the king very urgently desired. I do not therefore dwell 
longer on this, since either Arioch then explained more 
clearly to the king that Daniel could interpret his dream ; 
or he joined what had formerly been done; or else Daniel 
had obtained this before ; or he had begged of the king that 
some time should be given to Daniel. He puts sons of trans- 
migration, or captivity, a usual scriptural phrase for cap- 
tives, although this noun is collective. It now follows,— 


26. The king answered and said 26. Respondit rex, et dixit 
to Daniel, whose name was Belte- Danieli cujus nomen erat Bal- 
shazzar, Art thou able to make tesazzar, Estne tibi facultas ad 
known unto me the dream which I notificandum' mihi somnium 


1 To declare.—Calvin. 


154 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. VIII. 


have seen, and the interpretation quod vidi, et interpretationem 
thereof ? ejus ? 


The king uses these words through his despair of an 
interpretation, since he perceived all the Magi in this 
respect without judgment and understanding; for he was 
at first persuaded that the Magi alone were the possessors of 
wisdom. Since he had asked them in yain, the error with 
which he was imbued, as I have said, prevented him from 
hoping for anything better elsewhere. Through surprise, 
then, he here inquires, as if the thing were impossible, 
Have you that power? There is no doubt that God drew 
this interrogation from the proud king to render his grace in 
Daniel more illustrious. The less hope there was in the 
king himself, the more there was in the revelation of both 
dignity and reverence, as we shall afterwards see; for the 
king was astonished, and fell prostrate through stupor upon 
the earth before a captive! This is the reason why Daniel 
relates the use of this interrogation by the king. It now 
follows,— 

27. Daniel answered in the presence 27. Respondit Daniel regi, 
of the king, and said, The secret which et dixit, Arcanum quod rex 
the king hath demanded cannot the wise postulat sapientes, magi, astro- 
men, the astrologers, the magicians, the logi, genethliasi non possunt 
soothsayers, shew unto the king ; indicare regi. 

28. But there is a God in heaven that 28. Sed est Deus in ceelis, 
revealeth secrets,and maketh known to qui revelat arcana; et indicavit 
the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be regi Nebuchadnezzar quid fu- 
in the latter days. Thy dream, and the turum sit in fine! dierum: som- 
visions of thy head upon thy bed, are nium tuum, et visio capitis tui 
these. super lectum tuum, hee est. | 

First, with respect to these names we need not trouble 
ourselves much, since even the Jews themselves are com- 
pelled to guess at them. ‘They are very bold in their defini- 
tions and rash in their affirmations, and yet they cannot 
clearly distinguish how one kind of wise man differred from 
the others; hence it is sufficient for us to hold that the 
discourse now concerns those then esteemed “ wise men,” 
under the various designations of Magi, Soothsayers, and 
Astrologers. Now, as to Daniel’s answer. He says it was 
not surprising that the king did not find what he hoped for 
among the Magi, since God had breathed into him this dream 

1 In the extremity.—Calvin. 








OHAP. 11.27,28. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 155 


beyond the comprehension of human intellect. I know not 
whether those interpreters are right who think magical 
arts here simply condemned ; for I rather think a com- 
parison is instituted between the king’s dream and the 
substance of the science of the Magi. I always exclude 
superstitions by which they vitiated true and genuine science. 
But as far as the principles are concerned, we cannot. pre- 
cisely condemn astronomy and whatever belongs to the 
consideration of the order of nature. This appears to me 
the whole intention,—the king’s dream was not subjected 
to human knowledge, for mortals have no such natural skill 
as to be able to comprehend the meaning of the dream, and 
God manifests those secrets which need the peculiar revela- 
tion of the Spirit. When Daniel says the Magi, Astrologers, 
and the rest cannot explain to the king his dream, and 
are not suitable interpreters of it, the true reason is, because 
the dream was not natural and had nothing in common with 
human conjectures, but was the peculiar revelation of the 
Spirit. As when Paul disputes concerning the Gospel, he 
collects into order every kind of intelligence among men, 
because those who are endued with any remarkable acute- 
ness or ability think they can accomplish anything. But 
the doctrine of the Gospel is a heavenly mystery (1 Cor. ii. 14) 
which cannot be comprehended by the most learned and 
talented among men. ‘The real sense of Daniel’s words is 
this,—the Magi, Astrologers, and Soothsayers had no power 
of expounding the king’s dream, since it was neither natural 
nor human. 

This is clearly evident from the context, because he adds, 
there is a God in heaven who reveals secrets. For I take D3, 
berem, here for the adversative particle. He opposes therefore 
the revelation of God to the conjectures and interpretations 
of the Magi, since all human sciences are included, so to 
speak, within their own bounds and bolts. Daniel, there- 
fore, says that the matter requires the singular gift of the 
Holy Spirit. The same God also who revealed the king’s 
dream to Daniel, distributes to each of us ability and skill 
according to his own pleasure. Whence does it arise that 
some are remarkable for quickness and others for stupidity 





156 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. VIII. 


and sloth ?—that some become proficients in human arts and 
learning, and others remain utterly ignorant, unless God 
shews, by this variety, how by his power and will the minds 
of men become enlightened or remain blunt and stupid? 
As the Almighty is the supreme origin of all intelligence 
in the world, what Daniel here says is not generally true; 
and this contrast, unless we come to particulars, is either 
cold or superfluous. We understand, therefore, why he said 
in the former verse that the Magi and Astrologers could not 
explain the king’s dream, since the Almighty had raised 
King Nebuchadnezzar above the common level for the pur- 
pose of explaining futurity to him through his dream. 
There is then a God in heaven who reveals secrets; he 
shews to king Nebuchadnezzar what will come to pass. He 
confirms what I have said, that the king was utterly unable 
to comprehend the meaning of his own dream. It often 
happens that men’s minds move hither and thither, and thus 
make clever guesses ; but Daniel excludes all human media, 
and speaks of the dream as proceeding directly from God. 
He adds, what shall happen at the end or extremity of the 
days. We may inquire what he means by the word “ ex- 
tremity.” Interpreters think this ought to be referred to 
the advent of Christ ; but they do not explain why this 
word signifies Christ’s advent. There is no obscurity in the 


phrase ; “the end of the days” signifies the advent of Christ, — 


because if was a kind of renewal to the world. Most truly, 
indeed, the world is still in the same state of agitation 
as it was when Christ was manifest in the flesh ; but, as we 


shall afterwards see, Christ came for the very purpose of 


renovating the world, and since his Gospel is a kind of per- 
fection of all things, we are said to be “in the last days.” 
Daniel compares the whole period preceding Christ’s advent 
with this extremity of the days. God therefore wished to 
shew the king of Babylon what should occur after one 
monarchy had destroyed another, and also that there should 
be an end of those changes whenever Christ’s kingdom 
should arrive. At present I touch but briefly on this point, 
since more must be said upon it by and bye. 

This, says he, is the dream and vision of thy head upon thy 


a 





CHAP. II. 29. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 157 


couch. It may seem absurd for Daniel here to profess to 
explain to the king the nature of his dream and its interpre- 
tation, and yet to put in something else. But, as he will add 
nothing out of place, we ought not to question the propriety 
of his saying, this was the king’s vision and his dream ; for 
his object was to rouse the king the more urgently to attend 
to both the dream and its interpretation. Here we must 
take notice how the Prophet persists in this, with the view of 
persuading the king that God was the author of the dream 
about which he inquired of Daniel; for the words would be 
entirely thrown away unless men were thoroughly persuaded 
that the explanation given proceeded from God. For many 
in the present day will hear willingly enough what may be 
said about the Gospel, but they are not inwardly touched 
by it, and then all they hear vanishes away and immediately 
escapes them. Hence reverence is the principle of true and 
solid understanding. Thus Daniel does not abruptly bring 
forward either the explanation or the narration of the dream, 
but prepares the proud king to listen, by shewing him that 
he neither dreamt at random nor in accordance with his own 
thoughts, but was divinely instructed and admonished con- 
cerning hidden events. It now follows, 


29. (As for thee, O king, thy thoughts 29. Tibi, rex, cogitationes tue 
came into thy mind upon thy bed what super lectum tuum ascenderunt, 
should come to pass hereafter; and he quid futurum esset posthac ; et 
that revealeth secrets maketh known qui revelat arcana exposuit tibi 
to thee what shall come to pass. quid futurum esset. 





He again confirms what I have just touched upon, for he 
wished to impress this upon the king’s mind—that God was 
the author of the dream, to induce the king to prepare for 
its interpretation with becoming sobriety, modesty, and do- 
cility. For unless he had been seriously affected, he would 
have despised Daniel’s interpretation ; just as we see men 
fail to profit through their own pride or carelessness even 
when God addresses them familiarly. Hence we must ob- 
serve this order, and be fully prepared to listen to God, 
and learn to put a bridle upon ourselves on hearing his 
sacred name, never rejecting whatever he proposes to us, 
but treating it with proper gravity. This is the true 
reason why Daniel repeats again that King Nebuchadnezzar 





158 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. VIII. 


was divinely instructed in future events. He says, in the 
first clause, The king’s thoughts ascended,—the phrase is 
- Hebrew and Chaldee. Thoughts are said to ascend when 
they are revolved in the brain or head, as we formerly saw— 
this vision was in thy head; since the seat of the reasoning 
faculty is in the head. Daniel therefore aserts the king to 
be anxious about futurity, as the greatest monarchs think 
of what shall happen after their death, and every one 
dreams about enjoying the empire of the whole world. So 
King Nebuchadnezzar was very probably indulging these 
thoughts. But it follows immediately, that his thoughts 
could not profit him unless God unveiled the future, because 
it was his peculiar office, says the Prophet, to reveal secrets. 
Here we see clearly how vainly men disturb themselves 
when they turn over and over again subjects which surpass 
their abilities. King Nebuchadnezzar might have fatigued 
himself for a long time without profit if he had not been in- 
structed by the oracle. Hence there is weight in these 
words—He who reveals secrets has explained to the king what 
shall happen ; that is, thou canst not understand the dream 
by thine own thoughts, but God has deemed thee worthy of 
this peculiar favour when he wished to make thee conscious 
of mysteries which had been otherwise altogether hidden 
from thee, for thou couldst never have penetrated to such a 
depth. 

He afterwards adds— . 

30. But as for me, this secret is not 20. Et ego,! non in sapientia 
revealed to me for any wisdom that I que sit in me pre cunctis vi- 
have more than any living, but for their ventibus, arcanum hoe pate- 
sakes that shall make known the inter- factum es¢ mihi;? sed ut inter- 
pretation to the king, and that thou pretationem regi exponerem, 


mightest know the thoughts of thy et cogitationes cordis tui cog- 
heart.) nosceres, 


Here Daniel meets an objection which Nebuchadnezzar 
might make,—If God alone can reveal secrets, how, I pray 
thee, canst thou, a mere mortal, do it? Daniel anticipates 
this, and transfers the whole glory to God, and ingenuously 


1 That is, to me.—Calvin. 


2 The repetition is superfluous, but it does not obscure the sense.— 
Calvin. 





OMAP, Ir. 30. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 159 


confesses that he has no interpretation of his own to offer, 
but represents himself as led forward by God’s hand to be 
its interpreter; and as having nothing by his own natural 
talents, but acting as God pleased to appoint him his ser- 
vant for this office, and as using his assistance. This secret, 
then, says he, has been made known to me. By these words 
he sufficiently declares, how his undertaking to interpret the 
dream was God’s peculiar gift. But he more clearly ex- 
presses this gift to be supernatural, as it is called, by saying, 
not m the wisdom which belongs to me. For if Daniel had 
surpassed the whole world in intelligence, yet he could 
neyer divine what the king of Babylon had dreamt! He 
excelled, indeed, in superior abilities and learning, and was 
endowed, as we have said, with remarkable gifts; yet he 
could never have obtained this power which he acquired 
from God through prayer, (I repeat it again,) through his 
own study or industry, or any human exertions. 

We observe how Daniel here carefully excludes, not 
only what men foolishly claim as their own, but also what 
God naturally confers; since we know the profane to be 
endowed with singular talents, and other eminent faculties ; 
and these are called natural, since God desires his gracious 
gifts to shine forth in the human race by such examples as 
these. But while Daniel acknowledges himself endowed 
with no common powers, through the good pleasure and dis- 
cipline of God, though he confesses this, I say, yet he places 
this revelation on a higher footing. We observe also how 
the gifts of the Spirit mutually differ, because Daniel 
acted in a kind of twofold capacity with regard to the en- 
dowments with which it pleased God to adorn him. First 
of all, he made rapid progress in all sciences, and flour- 
ished much in intellectual quickness, and we have already 
clearly shewn this to be owing to the mere liberality of God. 
This liberality puts all things in their proper order, while it 
shews God’s singular favour in the explanation of the 
dream. 

This secret, then, was not made known to me on account of 
any wisdom in me beyond the rest of mankind. Daniel does 
not affirm himself to be superior to all men in wisdom, as 





160 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. VIIT. 


some falsely twist these words, but he leaves this in doubt 
by saying, This ought not to be ascribed to wisdom, for if I 
were the acutest of all men, all my shrewdness would ayail 
me nothing ; and, again, if I were the rudest idiot, still it is 
God who uses me as his servant in interpreting the dream 
to you. You must not, therefore, expect anything human 
from me, but you must receive what I say to you, because I 
am the instrument of God’s Spirit, just as if I had come 
down from heaven, This is the simple sense of the words, 
Hence we may learn to ascribe the praise to God alone, to 
whom it is due ; for it is his peculiar office to illuminate our 
minds, so that we may comprehend heavenly mysteries. For 
although we are naturally endued with the greatest acute- 
ness, which is also his gift, yet we may call it a limited en- 
dowment, as it does not reach to the heavens. Let us learn, 
then, to leave his own to God, as we are admonished by this 
expression of Daniel. 

He afterwards adds, But that I may make baglin to the 
king the interpretation, and thou mayest know the thoughts of 
thy heart. Daniel uses the plural number, but indefinitely ; 
as if he had said, God has left thee indeed hitherto in sus- 
pense; but yet he did not inspire thee with this dream in 
vain. These things, therefore, are mutually united, namely, 
—God has revealed to thee this secret, and has appointed 
me his interpreter. Thus we perceive Daniel’s meaning. 
For Nebuchadnezzar might object, Why does God torment 
me thus? What is the meaning of my perplexity ;—first 
I dream, and then my dream escapes me, and its inter- 
pretation is unknown to me? Lest, therefore, Nebuchad- 
nezzar should thus argue with God, Daniel here anticipates 
him, and shews how neither the dream nor the vision occur- — 
red in vain; but God now grants what was there want- 
ing, namely, the return of the dream to Nebuchadnezzar’s 
memory, and at the same time his acknowledgment of its 
purport, and the reason of its being sent to him. 





CHAP. 11-31-35. 


31. Thou, O king, sawest, and be- $i, 
hold a great image. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 161 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since thou desirest us to differ from the 


brutes, and hence didst impress our minds with the light of in- 
tellect,—Grant, I pray thee, that we may learn to acknowledge 
and to magnify this singular favour, and may we exercise our- 
selves in the knowledge of those things which induce us to rever- 
ence thy sovereignty. Besides this, may we distinguish between 
that common sense which thou hast bestowed upon us, and 
the illumination of thy Spirit, and the gift of faith, that thou 
alone mayest be glorified by our being grafted by faith into the 
body of thine only-begotten Son. We entreat also from thee 
further progress and increase of the same faith, until at length 
thou bring us to the full manifestation of light. Then, being 
like thee, we shall behold thy glory face to face, and enjoy the 
same in Christ our Lord.—Amen. 


Lecture Ninth. 


Tu rex videbas, et ecce 


This great imago una grandis, imago illa mag- 


image, whose brightness was excel- 
lent, stood before thee, and the form 
thereof was terrible. 
32. This image’s head was of fine 
pole his breast and his arms of silver, 
is belly and his thighs of brass, 


33. His legs of iron, his feet part 
of iron and part of clay. 

34. Thou sawest till that a stone 
was cut out without hands, which 
smote the image upon his feet that 
were of iron and clay, and brake 
them to pieces. 

35. Then was the iron, the clay, 
the brass, the silver, and the gold, 
broken to pieces together, and be- 


came like the chaff of the summer 


thrashing-floors ; and the wind car- 
ried them away, that no place was 


na, et splendor ejus’ pretiosus? sta- 
bat coram te, et species ejus terri- 
bilis. 

32. Hujus imaginis caput ex auro 
bono,? pectus ejus et brachia ejus ex 
argento, venter ejus et femora ejus 
ex ere, ws. 

33. Crura ejus ex ferro,‘ pedes ejus 
partim ex ferro, et partim testa. 

34. Videbas, quousque excisus 
fuit lapis, qui non ex manibus,® et 
percussit imaginem ad pedes qui 
erant ex ferro et testa, et contrivit 
eos. 

35. Tune contrita sunt simul fer- 
rum, testa, ses, argentum, et aurum: 
et fuerunt quasi quisquilie® ex 
area eestivali: et abstulit ea ven- 
tus, et non inventus est locus eorum; 
et lapis qui percusserat imaginem, 


°. 
* Or, appearance, in common language—its splendour, therefore.— 


Calvin. 
2 Or, excellent.—Calvin. 
# Tron.—Calvin. 


§ Pure gold.—Calvin. 


5 Which was cut out without human hands.—Calvin. 


® Or, chaff.— Calvin. 
VOL. I. 


162 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. IX. 


found for them: and the stone that fuit in montem magnum, et imple- 
smote the image became a great vit totam terram. 
mountain, and filled the whole earth. 


Attnoucu Daniel here records the dream, and does not 
touch on its interpretation, yet we must not proceed farther 
without discoursing on the matter itself. When the interpre- 
tation is afterwards added, we shall confirm what we have pre- 
viously said, and amplify as the context may guide us. Here 
Daniel records how Nebuchadnezzar saw an image consist- 
ing of gold, silver, brass, and iron, but its feet were mixed, 
partly of iron and partly of clay. We have already treated 
of the name of the “ Vision,” but I briefly repeat again, 
—king Nebuchadnezzar did not see this image here men- 
tioned, with his natural eyes, but it was a specimen of the 
revelation which he knew with certainty to haye been 
divinely offered to him. Otherwise, he might have thrown 
off all care, and acted as he pleased ; but God held him down 
in complete torment, until Daniel came as its interpreter. 

Nebuchadnezzar then saw anvmage. All writers endowed 
with a sound judgment and candidly desirous of explaining 
the Prophet’s- meaning, understand this, without controversy, 
of the Four Monarchies, following each other in succession. 
The Jews, when pressed by this interpretation, confuse the 
Turkish with the Roman empire, but their ignorance and 
unfairness is easily proved. For when they wish to escape 
the confession of Christ having been exhibited to the world, 
they seek stale calumnies which do not require refutation ; 
but still something must afterwards be said in its proper 
place. My assertion is perfectly correct, that interpreters 
of moderate judgment and candour, all explain the passage 
of the Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman mo- 
narchies: and Daniel himself afterwards shews this sufii- 
ciently by his own words. A question, however, arises, 
why God represented these four monarchies under this 
image? for it does not seem to correspond throughout, as 
the Romans had nothing in common with the Assyrians. 
History has fully informed us how the Medes and Persians 
succeeded the Chaldeans; how Babylon was besieged by 
the enemy; and how Cyrus, after obtaining the victory, 





c= 
mS. 
= 
q 
= 


CHAP.11.31-35. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 163 


transferred the empire to the Medes and Persians. It 
may, perhaps, seem absurd that one image only should 
be proposed. But it is probable—nay, it may be shewn— 
that God does not here regard any agreement between these 
four monarchies, for there was none at all, but the state of 
the world at large. God therefore wished, under this figure, 
to represent the future condition of the world till the advent 
of Christ. This is the reason why God joined these four 
empires together, although actually different ; since the 
second sprang from the destruction of the first, and the third 
from that of the second. ‘This is one point, and we may now 
inquire, secondly, why Daniel calls the kingdom of Babylon 
by the honourable term golden. For we know the extent of 
its tyranny and the character of the Assyrians, and their 
union with the Chaldeans. We are also aware of the de- 
struction of Nineveh, and how the Chaldeans made Babylon 
their capital city, to preserve the seat of empire among 
themselves. If we consider the origin of that monarchy, we 
shall surely find the Assyrians like savage beasts, full of 
avarice, cruelty, and rapacity, and the Chaldeans superior to 
all these vices. Why, then, is that empire called the head 
—and why a golden head ? 
As to the name, “head,” since that monarchy arose first, 
there is nothing surprising in Daniel’s assigning the highest 
-place to it. And as to his passing by Nineveh, this is not 
surprising, because that city had been already cut off, and he 
is now treating of future events. The Chaldean empire, 
‘then, was first in the order of time, and is called “ golden” 
by comparison ; because the world grows worse as it becomes 
older; for the Persians sand Medes who seized upon the 
whole East under the auspices of Cyrus, were worse than the 
Assyrians and Chaldeans. So profane poets invented fables 
about The Four Ages, the Golden, Silver, Brazen, and Iron. 
They do not mention the clay, but without doubt they 
received this tradition from Daniel. If any one object, that 
Cyrus excelled in the noblest qualities, and was of a heroic 
disposition, and celebrated by historians for his prudence 
and perseverance, and other endowments, I reply, we must 
not look here at the character of any one man, but at the 





164 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. IX, 


continued state of the Persian empire. This is sufficiently 
probable on comparing the empire of the Medes and Per- 
sians with that of the Babylonians, which is called “silver;” 
since their morals were deteriorated, as we have already said. 
Experience also demonstrates how the world always degene- 
rates, and inclines by degrees to vices and corruptions. 
Then as to the Macedonian empire, it ought not to seem 
absurd to find it compared to brass, since we know the 
cruelty of Alexander’s disposition. It is frivolous to notice 
that politeness which has gained him favour with historians; 


since, if we reflect upon his natural character, he surely 


breathed cruelty from his very boyhood. Do we not discern 
in him, when quite a boy, envy and emulation? When he 
saw his father victorious in war, and subduing by industry 
or depraved arts the cities of Greece, he wept with envy, 
because his father left him nothing to conquer. As he 
manifested such pride when a boy, we conclude him to have 
been more cruel than humane. And with what purpose and 
intention did he undertake the expedition by which he be- 
came king of kings, unless through being discontented not 
only with his own power, but with the possession of the 
whole world? We know also how he wept when he heard 
from that imaginative philosophy, that there were more 
worlds than this. ‘“ What,” said he, “I do not possess even 
one world!” Since, then, one world did not suffice fora 
man who was small of stature, he must indeed put off all 


humanity, as he really appeared to do. He never spared the 
blood of any one; and wherever he burst forth, like a’ 


devouring tempest, he destroyed everything. Besides, what 
is here said of that monarchy ought not to be restricted to 
the person of Alexander, who was its chief and author, but 
is extended to all his successors. We know that they com- 
mitted horrible cruelties, for before his empire was divided 
into four parts, constituting the kingdoms of Asia, Syria, 
Egypt, and Macedonia, how much blood was shed! God took 
away from Alexander all his offspring. He might have lived 
at home and begotten children, and thus his memory would 
have been noble and celebrated among all posterity ; but 
God exterminated all his family from the world. His mo- 


~ 


a ” 








-OHAP.1I. 31-35. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 165 


ther perished by the sword at the age of eighty years ; also 
his wife and sons, as well as a brother of unsound mind. 
Finally, it was a horrible proof of God’s anger against Alex- 
ander’s offspring, for the purpose of impressing all ages with 
a sense of his displeasure at such cruelty. If then we extend 
the Macedonian empire to the period when Perseus was 
conquered, and Cleopatra and Ptolemy slain in Egypt, and 
Syria, Asia, and Egypt reduced under the sway of Rome— 
if we comprehend the whole of this period, we shall not 
wonder at the prophet Daniel calling the monarchy “brazen.” 

When he speaks of THE Roman Empire as “iron,” we 
must always remember the reason I have noticed, which 
has reference to the world in general, and to the depraved 
nature of mankind; whence their vices and immoralities 
always increase till they arrive at a fearful height. If we 
consider how the Romans conducted themselves, and how 
cruelly they tyrannized over others, the reason why their do- 
minion is called “iron” by Daniel will immediately appear. 
Although they appear to have possessed some skill in poli- 
tical affairs, we are acquainted with their ambition, avarice, 
and cruelty. Scarcely any nation can be found which suf- 
fered like the Romans under those three diseases, and since 
they were so subject to these, as well as to others, it is not 
surprising that the Prophet detracts from their fame and 
prefers the Macedonians, Persians, Medes, and even As- 
syrians and Chaldeans to them. 

When he says, the feet of the image were partly of iron 
and partly of clay, this ought to be referred to the ruin which 
occurred, when God dispersed and cut in pieces, so to speak, 
that monarchy. The Chaldean power fell first; then the 
Macedonians, after subduing the East, became the sole mo- 
narchs to whom the Medes and Persians were subservient. 
The same event happened to the Macedonians, who were at 
length subdued by the Romans; and all their kings who 
succeeded Alexander were cut off. But there was another 
reason why God wished to overthrow the Roman monarchy. 
For it fell by itself according to the prediction of this pro- 
phecy. Since, then, without any external force it fell to 
pieces by itself, it easily appears that it was broken up by 


166 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. IX. 


Christ, according to this dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. 
It is positively certain, that nothing was ever stable from the 
beginning of the world, and the assertion of Paul was always 
true—the fashion of this world passeth away. (1 Cor. vii. 31.) 
By the word “ fashion” he means whatever is splendent in 
the world is also shadowy and evanescent: he adds, also, 
that all which our eyes gaze upon must vanish away. But, 
as I have said, the reason was different when God wished to 
destroy the empire of the Chaldees, the Persians, and the 
Macedonians; because this was more clearly shewn in the 
case of the Romans, how Christ by his advent took away 
whatever was splendid, and magnificent, and admirable in 
the world. This, therefore, is the reason why God assigns 
specially to the Romans feet of clay. Thus much, then, with 
respect to the four empires. 

In the third place, it may be doubted why Chrzst is said 
to have broken this image from the mountain. For if Christ 
is the eternal wisdom of God (Prov. viii. 15) by whom kings 
reign, this seems scarcely to accord with it; for how, by his 
advent, should he break up the political order which we 
know God approves of, and has appointed and established 
by his power? I answer,—earthly empires are swallowed 
and broken up by Christ accidentally, as they say. (Ps. ii. 9.) 
For if kings exercise their office honestly, clearly enough 
Christ’s kingdom is not contrary to their power. Whence, 
then, does it happen that Christ strikes kings with an iron 
sceptre, and breaks, and ruins, and reduces them to nothing? 
Just because their pride is untameable, and they raise their 
heads to heaven, and wish, if possible, to draw down God 
from his throne. Hence they necessarily feel Christ’s hand 
opposed to them, because they cannot and will not subject 
themselves to God. 

But another question may be raised :—When Christ was 
made manifest, those monarchies had fallen long previously; 
for the Chaldean; the Persian, and that of the successors of 
Alexander, had passed away. The solution is at hand, if we 
understand what I have previously mentioned—that under 
one image the whole state of the world is here depicted for 
us. Although all events did not occur at the same moment, 





CHAP.11.31-35. | COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 167 


yet we shall find the Prophet’s language essentially true, 
that Christ should destroy all monarchies. For when the 
seat of the empire of the East was changed, and Nineveh 
destroyed, and the Chaldeans had fixed the seat of empire 
among themselves, this happened by God’s just judgment, 
and Christ was already reigning as the king of the world. 
That monarchy was really broken up by his power, and the 
same may be said of the Persian empire. For when they 
degenerated from a life of austerity and sobriety into one of 
foul and infamous luxury ; when they raged so cruelly against 
all mankind, and became so exceedingly rapacious, their 
empire necessarily passed away from them, and Alexander 
executed the judgment of God. The same occurred to 
Alexander and his successors. Hence the Prophet means, 
that before Christ appeared, he already possessed supreme 

_ power, both in heaven and earth, and thus broke up and 
annihilated the pride and violence of all men. 

But Daniel says—the image perished when the Roman 
empire was broken up, and yet we observe in the East 
and the neighbouring regions the greatest monarchs still 
reigning with very formidable prowess. I reply, we must 

remember what we said yesterday-—the dream was presented 
to King Nebuchadnezzar, that he might understand all future 
events to the renovation of the world. Hence God was not 
willing to instruct the king of Babylon further than to in- 
form him of the four future monarchies which should possess 
the whole globe, and should obscure by their splendour all 
the powers of the world, and draw all eyes and all attention 
to itself; and afterwards Christ should come and overthrow 
those monarchies. God, therefore, wished to inform King 
Nebuchadnezzar of these events; and here we must notice 
the intention of the Holy Spirit. No mention is made of 
other kingdoms, because they had not yet emerged into im- 
portance sufficient to be compared to these four monarchies. 
While the Assyrians and Chaldeans reigned, there was no 
rivalry with their neighbours, for the whole of the East 
obeyed them. It was ineredible that Cyrus, springing from 
a barbarous region, could so easily draw to himself such re- 
sources, and seize upon so many provinces in so short a time! 





168 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. IX. 


For he was like a whirlwind which destroyed the whole 
East. The same may be said of the third monarchy ; for if 
the successors of Alexander had been mutually united, there 
was then no empire in the world which could have increased 
their power. The Romans were fully occupied in struggling 
with their neighbours, and were not yet at rest on their own 
soil; and afterwards, when Italy, Greece, Asia, and Egypt 


were obedient to them, no other empire rivalled their fame; 
for all the power and glory of the world was at that period 


absorbed by their arms. 






Ss 


We now understand why Daniel mentioned those four — 


kingdoms, and why he places their close at the advent of 


Christ. When I speak of Daniel, this ought to be under- — 


stood of the dream; for without doubt God wished to en- 


courage the Jews not to despair, when first the brightness — 
of the Chaldean monarchy, then that of the Persian, next — 
the Macedonian, and lastly, the Romans overwhelmed the — 


world. For what could they have determined by themselves 
at the time when Nebuchadnezzar dreamt about the four 
empires? The kingdom of Israel was then utterly destroyed, 
the ten tribes were exiles, the kingdom of Judah was re- 
duced to desolation. Although the city Jerusalem was yet 
standing, still where was the kingdom? It was full of igno- 
miny and disgrace; nay, the posterity of David then reigned 
precariously in the tribe of Judah, and even there over but 
a part of it; and afterwards, although their return was per- 
mitted, yet we know how miserably they were afflicted. And 
when Alexander, like a tempest, devastated the East, they 
suffered, as we know, the greatest distress; they were fre- 
quently ravaged by his successors; their city was reduced 
almost to solitude, and the temple profaned ; and when their 
condition was at the best, they were still tributary, as we 
shall afterwards see. It was certainly necessary for their 
minds to be supported in so great and such confused pertur- 
bation. This, therefore, was the reason why God sent the 
dream about those monarchies to the king of Babylon. If 
Daniel had dreamt, the faithful would not have had so re- 
markable a subject-matter for the confirmation of their faith ; 


but when the king’s dream is spread abroad through almost. 





 OHAP.11.31-35. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. | 169 


the whole East, and when its interpretation is equally cele- 
brated, the Jews might recover their spirits and revive their 
hopes at their own time, since they understood from the first 
that these four monarchies should not exist by any mere 

changes of fortune; for the same God who had foretold to 
_ King Nebuchadnezzar future events, determined also what 
he should do, and what he wished to take place. 

The Jews knew that the Chaldeans were reigning only 
by the decree of heaven; and that another more destruc- 
tive empire should afterwards arise; thirdly, that they 
must undergo a servitude under the Macedonians ; lastly, 
that the Romans should be the conquerors and masters 
of the world—and all this by the decree of heaven. When 
they reflected on these things, and finally heard of the 
Redeemer, as, according to promise, a perpetual King, and 
all the monarchies, then so refulgent, as without any sta- 
bility—all this would prove no common source of strength. 
Now, therefore, we understand with what intention God 
wished what had hitherto been hidden, to be everywhere 
promulgated; the Jews, too, would hand down to their sons 
and grandsons what they had heard from Daniel, and after- 
wards this prophecy would be extant, and become an admi- 
ration to them throughout all ages. 

When we come to the words, he says, one «mage was great 
and large, its splendour was precious, and ifs form terrible. 
By this phrase, God wished to meet a doubt which might 
creep into the minds of the Jews, on perceiving each of 
those empires prosperous in its turn. When the Jews, cap- 
tive and forlorn, saw the Chaldeans formidable throughout 
' the whole world, and, consequently, highly esteemed and 
all but adored by the rest of mankind, what could they 
think of it? Why, they would have no hope of return, be- 
cause God had raised their enemies to such great power 
_ that their avarice and cruelty were like a deep whirlpool. 
_ The Jews might thus conclude themselves to be drowned in 
_ avery deep abyss, whence they could not hope to escape. 
_ But when the empire was transferred to the Medes and 
Persians, although they were allowed the liberty of return- 
~ ing, still we know how small a number used this indulgence, 








130 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, IX. 


and the rest were ungrateful. Whether or not this was so, 
few of the Jews returned to their country ; and these had 
to make war upon their neighbours, and were subject to con- 
tinual molestation. As far as common sense would guide 
them, it was easier for them not to stir a step from Chaldea, 
Assyria, and the other parts of the East, since their neigh- 
bours in their own country were all so hostile to them. 
As long as they were tributary and esteemed almost as 
serfs and slaves, and while their condition was so humiliat-— 
ing, the same temptation remained. For, if they were 
God’s people, why did he not care for them so far as to re- 
lieve them from that cruel tyranny? Why did he not 
restore them to calmness, and render them free from such 
various inconveniences, and from so many injuries? When- 
the Macedonian empire succeeded, they were more miser- 
able than before; they were daily exposed as a prey, and 
every species of cruelty was practised towards them. Then, 
with regard to the Romans, we know how proudly they do- 
mineered over them. Although Pompey, at his first as- 
sault, did not spoil the temple, yet at length he became 
bolder, and Crassus shortly afterwards destroyed everything, 
till the most horrible and prodigious slaughter followed. As 
the Jews must suffer these things, this consolation must 
necessarily be offered to them—the Redeemer shall at length 
arrive, who shall break up all these empires. 

As to Christ being called the stone cut out without human 
hands, and being pointed out by other phrases, I cannot ex- 
plain them now. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we so travel through this world that 
our attention is easily arrested, and our judgment darkened, 
when we behold the power of the impious refulgent and terrible 
to ourselves and others: Grant, I say, that we may raise our 
eyes upwards, and consider how much power thou hast con- 
ferred upon thine only-begotten Son. Grant, also, that he may 
rule and govern us by the might of his Spirit, protect us by his 
faithfulness and guardianship, and compel the whole world to 
promote our salvation; thus may we rest calmly under his 
protection, and fight with that boldness and patience which he 











CHAP. 11.31-35. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 171 


both commands and commends, until at length we enjoy the 
fruit of the victory which thou hast promised, and which thou 
wilt provide for us in thy heavenly kingdom.— Amen. 


Lecture Tenth. 


We have already explained God’s intention in offering to 
King Nebuchadnezzar the dream concerning the four mo- 
narchies, and the kingdom of Christ which should put an 
end to them. We have shewn it to have been not for the 
king’s sake so much as for the consolation and support of the 
remnant of the faithful in those very severe troubles which 
awaited them, and were close at hand. For when redemp- 
-tion had been promised to them, and the Prophets had ex- 
tolled that remarkable beneficence of God in magnificent 
terms, their confidence might fail them amidst those revo- 
lutions which afterwards followed. For God wished to sus- 
tain their spirits, so that amidst such agitations and tumults 
they might remain constant, and patiently and quietly wait 
for the promised Redeemer. Meanwhile God wished to 
render all the Chaldeans without excuse, because this dream 
of the king’s was everywhere celebrated, and yet none of them 
profited by it, as far as Christ’s eternal reign is concerned. 
But this was the principal point in the dream, as we shall 
afterwards see. But God wished, in the first place, to con- 


_ sult the interests of his elect, lest they should despond 


among those so-called revolutions, which might seem con- 
trary to those numerous prophecies, by which not merely 
simple liberty was promised, but perpetual and continued 
happiness under God’s hand. We now understand the end 
which God intended by this dream.- We must now treat its 
explanation. We have already touched upon some points, 
but Daniel himself shall lead the way along which we are to 
proceed. First of all he says— 

_ 36. This is the dream; and we will 36. Hoe est somnium: et 
tell the interpretation thereof before the interpretationem ejus dicemus 

ing. coram rege. 


37. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: 37. Tu rex, rex regum es, 
for the God of heaven hath given thee a cui Deus celorum regnum, po- 





Ber) ee. CUS CG ee ee 





172 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, 


kingdom, power, and strength, and glo- tentiam et robur dedit,' et glo- 
zy, riam tibi.? 

38. And wheresoever the children of men 38. Et ubicunque habitant 
dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls filii hominum, bestia agri, et 
of the heaven, hath he given into thine volucris ccelorum,* dedit in ma- 
hand, and hath made thee ruler overthem num tuam, et prefecit te omni- 
all. Thou art this head of gold. bus :4 tu ipse caput es aureum, 


Daniel here declares “ the golden head of the image” to be 
the Babylonian kingdom. We know that the Assyrians were 
subdued before the monarchy was transferred to Babylon ; 
but since they did not prevail sufficiently to be considere 
as supreme rulers in that eastern territory, the Babylonia 
empire is here mentioned first. It is also worth while to 
remark, that God was unwilling to refer here to what had 
already occurred, but he rather proposed that the people 
should in future depend on this prophecy and rest upon 
it. Here it would have been superfluous to say anything 
about the Assyrians, since that empire had already passed 
away. But the Chaldeans were still to reign for some time 
~—say seventy or at least sixty years. Hence God wished 
to hold the minds of his own servants in suspense till the 
end of that monarchy, and then to arouse them by fresh 
hopes, until the second monarchy should pass away, so that 
afterwards they might rest in patience under the third and 
fourth monarchies, and might perceive at length the time of 
Christ’s advent to be at hand. This is the reason why 
Daniel places the Chaldean monarchy here in the first rank 
and order. And in this matter there is no difficulty, because 
he states King Nebuchadnezzar to be the golden head of the 
image. We may gather the reason of his being called the 
golden head from the context, namely, because its integrity 
_was then greater than under the empire of the Medes and 
Persians. It is very true that the Chaldeans were the most 
cruel robbers, and we know how Babylon was then detested 
by all the pious and sincere worshippers of God. Still, since 
things usually become worse by process of time, the state 
of the world was as yet tolerable under that sovereignty 


* Some translate the nouns by adjectives or epithets—a strong an 
powerful kingdom.— Calvin. 


2 The word 1, lek, “ to thee,” is redundant.— Calvin. 
; That is, “ birds ;? there is a change of number.—Calvin. 
Verbally, has made thee ruler over them all.—Calvin. 














CHAP, II. 39. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. Lis 


‘This is the reason why Nebuchadnezzar is called “ the head 
_ of gold ;” but this ought not to be referred to him personally, 
but rather extended to his whole kingdom, and all his suc- 
 cessors, among whom Belshazzar was the most hateful de- 
‘spiser of God; and by comprehension he is said to form 
part of this head of gold. But Daniel shews that he did not 
flatter the king, since he assigns this reason for Nebuchad- 
nezzar being the golden head-—-God had set him up above 
all the earth. But this seems to be common to all kings, 
_ since none of them reign without God’s permission—a senti- 
ment which is partially true, but the Prophet implies that 
Nebuchadnezzar was raised up in an especial manner, be- 
eause he excelled all other sovereigns. It now follows— 


39. And after thee shall arise an- 39. Et post te exsurget regnum 
other kingdom inferior to thee, and aliud inferius te,’ et regnum tertium 
another thirdkingdom of brass,which aliud quod erit eneum: et domina- 
shall bear rule over all the earth. bitur in tota terra. 

In this verse Daniel embraces the Second and Third 
Monarchies. He says the second should be inferior to the 
Chaldean in neither power nor wealth ; for the Chaldean 
empire, although it spread so far and so wide, was added to 
that of the Medes and Persians. Cyrus subdued the Medes 
first ; and although he made his father-in-law, Cyaxares, his 
ally in the sovereignty, yet he had expelled his maternal 
grandfather, and thus obtained peaceable possession of the 
kingdom throughoutall Media. Then heafterwards conquered 
the Chaldeans and Assyrians, as well as the Lydians and 
the rest of the nations of Asia Minor. We see then that his 
kingdom is not called inferior through having less splendour 
_ or opulence in human estimation, but because the general 
_ condition of the world was worse under the second monarchy, 
aS men’s vices and corruptions increase more and more. 
_ Cyrus was, it is true, a prudent prince, but yet sanguinary. 

Ambition and avarice carried him fiercely onwards, and he 
wandered in every direction, like a wild beast, forgetful of 
allhumanity. And if we scan his disposition accurately, we 
shall discover it to be, as Isaiah says, very greedy of human 
blood. (Chap. xiii. 18.) And here we may remark, that 


1 That is, to thine.— Calvin. 








174 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. X. 
he does not treat only of the persons of kings, but of their 
counsellors and of the whole people. Hence Daniel de- 
servedly pronounces the second state of the kingdom infe- 
rior to the first; not because Nebuchadnezzar excelled in 
dignity, or wealth, or power, but because the world had not 
degenerated so much as it afterwards did. For the more 
_these monarchies extend themselves, the more licentiousness 
increases in the world, according to the teaching of expe- 
rience. Whence the folly and madness of those who desire 
to have kings very powerful is apparent, just as if any one 
should desire a river to be most rapid, as Isaiah says when 
combating this folly. (Chap. viii. 7.) For the swifter, the 
deeper, and the wider a river flows on, the greater the de- 
struction of its overflow to the whole neighbourhood. Hence 
the insanity of those who desire the greatest monarchies, 
because some things will by positive necessity occur out of 
lawful order, when one man occupies so broad a space; and 
this did occur under the sway of the Medes and Persians. 
The description of the Third Monarchy now follows. It 
is called brazen, not so much from its hardness as from its 
being worse than the second. The Prophet teaches how the 
difference between the second and third monarchies is simi- 
lar to that between silver and brass. The rabbis confound 
the two monarchies, through their desire to comprehend under 
the second what they call the kingdom of the Greeks; but 
they display the grossest ignorance and dishonesty. For 
they do not err through simple ignorance, but they pur- 
posely desire to overthrow what Scripture here states clearly 
concerning the advent of Christ. Hence they are not 
ashamed to mingle and confuse history, and to pronounce 
carelessly on subjects unknown to them—unknown, I say, 
not because they escape men moderately versed in history, but 
through their being brutal themselves, and discerning nothing. 
For instead of Alexander the son of Philip, they put Alex- - 
ander the son of Mammea, who possessed the Roman empire, 
when half its provinces had been already separated from it. 
He was a spiritless boy, and was slain in his tent with the 
greatest ignominy by his own soldiers ; besides that, he never 
really governed, but lived as a minor under the sway of his 








OHAP. 11. 40-43. 


mother. 





COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 175 
And yet the Jews are not ashamed to distort and 
twist what relates to the king of Macedon to this Alexander 
the son of Mammea. But their wickedness and ignorance 
is easily refuted by the context, as we shall afterwards see. 
Here Daniel states shortly that there shall be a third mo- 


-narchy: he does not describe its character, nor explain it 


fully ; but we shall see in another place the meaning of his 
prophecy. He now interprets the dream of the king of 
Babylon, as the vision of the four empires had been offered 
to him. But the angel afterwards confirms the same to him 
by a vision, and very clearly, too, as will be seen in its own 
place. Without doubt this narrative of the brazen image 
relates to the Macedonian kingdom. How, then, is all doubt 
removed? By the description of the fourth empire, whica 
is much fuller, and clearly indicates what we shall soon see, 
that the Roman empire was like the feet, partly of clay and 











partly of iron. He says, therefore,— 


40. And the fourth kingdom shall 
bestrong as iron: forasmuch as iron 
breaketh in pieces and subdueth all 
things; and as iron that breaketh 
all these, shall it break in pieces and 
bruise. 

41. And whereas thou sawest the 
feet and toes, part of potter’s clay, 
and part of iron, the kingdom shall 
be divided; but there shall be in it 
of the strength of the iron, foras- 
much as thou sawest the iron mixed 
with miry clay. 

42. And as the toes of the feet 
were part of iron, and part of clay; 
so the kingdom shall be partly 
strong, and partly broken. 

43. And whereas thou sawest iron 


‘mixed with miry clay, they shall 


mingle themselves with the seed of 
men: but they shall not cleave one 
to another, even as iron is not mixed 
with clay. 


40. Et regnum quartum erit ro- 
bustum instar ferri: quia sicuti fer- 
rum conterit et comminuit omnia, et 
sicuti ferrum contundit omnia hee, 
conteret et contundet. 


41. Quod autem vidisti pedes et 
digitos partim ex luto fictili,’ et par- 
tim ex ferro: regnum divisum erit: 
et de fortitudine ferri erit in eo, 
propterea vidisti ferrum mixtum 
cum testa Juti.? 


42. Et digiti pedum® partim ex - 
ferro, et partim ex terra,‘ ex parte 
regnum illud erit robustum, et ex 
parte erit fragile. 

43. Quod vidisti ferrum commix- 
tum teste lutez,®' commiscebunt se 
inter se in semine hominis, et non 
coherebunt alius cum ailio, sicuti 
ferrum non miscetur cum testa, 


Here the Fourth Empire is described, which agrees only 


' Or, potter’s clay —Calvin. 


* Or, moist clay.—Calvin. 


Or, if we repeat the verb, it is the accusative case.—Calvin. 
* Or, of the clay which he mentioned.—Calvin. 


5 For vessels. —Calvin. 


176 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


with the Roman, for we know that the four successors of 


Alexander were at length subdued. Philip was the first 
king of Macedon, and Antiochus the second; but yet Philip 
lost nothing from his own kingdom ; he only yielded it to 





‘ 
4 


the free cities of Greece. It was, therefore, hitherto entire, 
except as it paid tribute to the Romans for some years on — 
account of the expenses of the war. Antiochus, also, when — 


compelled to adopt the conditions imposed by the conqueror, 


was driven beyond Mount Taurus; but Macedonia was re-— 


duced to a province when Perseus was overcome and cap- 


tured. The kings of Syria and Asia suffered in the same 


way ; and, lastly, Egypt was seized upon by Augustus. For 
their posterity had reigned up to that period, and Cleopatra 
was the last of that race, as is sufficiently known. When, 
therefore, the three monarchies were absorbed by the Ro- 
mans, the language of the Prophet suits them well enough ; 
for, as the sword diminishes, and destroys, and ruins all 
things, thus those three monarchies were bruised and broken 
up by the Roman empire. There is nothing surprising in 
his here enumerating that popular form of government among 
“monarchies,” since we know how few were rulers among 
this people, and how customary it was to call every kind of 
government among them an empire, and the people them- 
selves the rulers of the whole world! But the Prophet 
compares them to “iron,” not only on account of its hard- 
ness, although this reason is clearly expressed, but also 
through another kind of similitude,—they were worse than 
all others, and surpassed in cruelty and barbarity both the 
Macedonians and the Medo-Persians. Although they boast 
much in their own prowess, yet if any one exercises a sound 
judgment upon their actions, he will discover their tyranny 
to be far more cruel than all the rest ; although they 
boast in their senators being as great as ordinary kings, 
yet we shall find them no better than robbers and tyrants, 
for scarcely one in a hundred of them shewed a grain of 
equity, either when sent into any province or when dis- 
charging any magistracy ; and with regard to the body of 
the empire itself, it was all horrible pollution. This, then, is 
the reason why the Prophet says that monarchy was partly 





CHAP. 11. 40-43. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. i7t 


composed of iron, and partly of potter’s clay, since we know 
how they suffered under intestine disorders. The Prophet 
requires no other interpretation here, because, he says, this 
mixture of iron and clay, which unites so badly, is a sign of 
disunion, through their never mingling together. 

The kingdom, therefore, shall be divided, and he adds yet 
another mixture,—they shall mingle themselves with the 
seed of men, that is, they shall be neighbours to others, and 
that mutual interchange which ought to promote true friend- 
ship, shall become utterly profitless. The opinion of those 
who introduce the alliance of Pompey and Cesar is far- 
fetched, for the Prophet is speaking of a continued govern- 
ment. If stability is sought for in any kind of govern- 
ment, it surely ought to shine forth in a republic, or at least 
in an oligarchy in preference to a despotism ; because, when 
all are slaves, the king cannot so confidently trust his sub- 
jects, through their constant fear for themselves. But when 
all unite in the government, and the very lowest receive 
some mutual advantage from their commonwealth, then, as 
I have said, superior stability ought to be conspicuous. But 
Daniel pronounces, that even if the superior power should 
reside in the senate and the people—for there is dignity in 
the senate, and majesty in the people—yet that empire 
should fall. Besides, although they should be mutually 
united in neighbourhood and kindred, yet this would not 
prevent them from contending with each other with savage 
enmity, even to the destruction of their empire. Here then 
the Prophet furnishes us with a vivid picture of the Roman 
empire, by saying that tt was luke iron, and also mingled with 
clay, or mud, as they destroyed themselves by intestine dis- 
cord after arriving at the highest pitch of fortune. Thus far 
concerning the four monarchies. 

We may now inquire why Daniel said, The stone which 
was to be cut out of the mountain should destroy all these 
empires ; since it does not appear, at first sight, to suit the 
kingdom of Christ. The Babylonian monarchy had been 
previously abolished—the Medes and Persians had been 
utterly prostrated by Alexander—and after Alexander's 
conquests, had been divided into four kingdoms ; the Romans 

VOL. I. M 





178 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. X. 


subdued all those lands ; and then it is objected that the Pro- — 
phet’s language is absurd, a stone shall come out of a moun- 
tain which shall break wp all empires. The solution, as I 
have said above, is at hand. Daniel does not here state that 
the events shall happen together, but simply wishes to teach 
how the empires of the world shall fail, and one kingdom 
shall be eternal. He does not regard, therefore, when or 
why the empires of the Chaldees and of the Persians fell, 
but he compares the kingdom of Christ with all those mon- 
archies which have been mentioned. And we must always 
remember what I have touched upon, that the Prophet 
speaks for the captive people, and accommodates his style to 
the faithful, to whom he wished to stretch forth the hand, 
and to strengthen them in those most serious concussions 
which were at hand. And hence, when he speaks of all 
lands and nations, if any one objects—there were then other 
empires in the world, the answer is easy, the Prophet is not 
here describing what should happen through all the ages of 
the world, but only what the Jews should see. For the 
Romans were the lords of many regions before they passed 
over into Greece; we know they had two provinces in 
Spain, and after the close of the second Punic war were 
masters of that upper sea, and held undisputed possession of 
all the islands, as well as of Cisalpine Gaul and other regions. 
No notice is taken of this empire, till it was made known to 
the Jews, as they might have given themselves up to utter 
despair, when they could not perceive an end to those storms 
which almost ruined the world; and, meanwhile, they were 
the most miserable of all men, because the various and con- 
tinual calamities of the world never ceased. We must re- 
member this view of things, as otherwise the whole prophecy 
would be cold and profitless to us. I now return to the 
kingdom of Christ. 

THE KINGDOM oF CHRIST is said to break up all the empires 
of the world, not directly, but only accidentally, as the 
phrase is. For Daniel here assumes a principle, sufficiently 
understood by the Jews ; namely, those monarchies were op- 
posed to Christ’s kingdom. For the Chaldees had over- 
thrown God’s temple, and had endeavoured as far as pos- 











‘ 
? Ps 1 
=e 
a 





OHAP. 11. 40-43. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 179 


sible to extinguish the whole of his worship, and to ex- 
terminate piety from the world. As far as concerns the 


Medes and Persians, although by their kindness a permis- 


sion to return was granted to the people, yet very soon after- 
wards the kings of the Medes and Persians raged against 
that most miserable people, until the greater part of them 
preferred remaining in exile to returning home. At length 
came the Macedonian fury ; and although the Jews were 
spared for a short period, we know how impetuously the 
kings of Syria and Egypt overran Judea, how cruelly they 
treated the wretched people by rapine and plunder, and the 
shedding of innocent blood. Again, the extreme barbarity 
of Antiochus in ordering all the Prophetic Books to be 
burned, and in all but exterminating the religion itself 
(1 Mace. i. 59) is well ascertained. 

No wonder, then, that Daniel here opposes the reign of 
Christ to such monarchies! Next, as to the Romans, we 
know how thoroughly and proudly they despised the name 
of “ Christian !” nay, they endeavoured by all means to root 
out from the world the Gospel and the doctrine of salvation, as 
an abominable thing. With all this we are familiar. Hence, 
to inform the faithful of their future condition until Christ’s 


_ advent, Daniel shews how all the empires of the world should 
_be adverse to God, and all its most powerful kings and 
‘sovereigns should be his very worst and most cruel enemies, 


and should use every means in their power to extinguish 
true piety. Thus he exhorts them to bear their cross, and 
never to yield to those wretched and sorrowful spectacles, 
but to proceed steadily in the course of their calling, until 
the promised Redeemer should appear. We stated this to 
be “accidental,” since all the kingdoms of this world are 
clearly founded on the power and beneficence of Christ ; but 
a memorable proof of God’s anger ought to exist against 
them all, because they raised themselves against the Son of 


_ God, the Supreme King, with such extreme fury and hos- 
— tility. 


Now, Christ is compared to a stone cut out of a mountain. 
Some restrict this, unnecessarily, to the generation of Christ, 
because he was born of a virgin, out of the usual course of 


180 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. X. 


nature. Hence he says, as we have seen, that it was cut out 
of a mountain without the hand of man ; that is, he was 
divinely sent, and his empire was separated from all earthly 
ones, since it was divine and heavenly. Now, therefore, we 
understand the reason of this simile. 

With respect to the word “ stone,” Christ is not here called 
a stone in the sense of the word in Ps. exviii. 22, and Is. 
viii. 14, and Zechariah ix. 15, and elsewhere. For there the 
name of a stone is applied to Christ, because his Church is 
founded on it. The perpetuity of his kingdom is denoted 
there as well as here; but, as I have already said, these 
phrases ought to be distinguished. It must now be added, 
—Christ is called a stone cut out without human hands, 
because he was from the beginning almost without form and 
comeliness, as far as human appearance goes. There is also 
a silent contrast between its magnitude, which the Prophet 
will soon mention, and this commencement. The stone cut 
out of the mountain shall descend, and it shall become a great 
mountain, and shall fill the whole earth. We see how the 
Prophet here predicts the beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, as 
contemptible and abject before the world. It was not con- 
spicuous for excellence, as it is said in Isaiah, A branch is 
sprung from the root of Jesse. (xi. 1.) When the posterity 
of David were deprived of all dignity, the royal name was 
utterly buried, and the diadem trodden under foot, as it is 
said in Ezekiel. (xvii. 19.) Hence, Christ first appeared 
cast down and lowly ; but the branch increased wonderfully 
and beyond all expectation and calculation, unto an im- 
mense size, till it filled the whole earth. We now perceive 


how appositely Daniel speaks of Christ’s kingdom: but we 


must treat the rest to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, that we may remember ourselves to be pil- 


grims in the world, and that no splendour of wealth, or power, 
or worldly wisdom may blind our eyes, but may we always direct 


our eyes and all our senses towards the kingdom of thy Son. 


May we always fix them there, and may nothing hinder us 
from hastening on in the course of our calling, until at length 


we pass over the course and reach the goal which thou hast set — 





OHAP, 11. 44,45. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 181 


before us, and to which thou dost this day invite us by the 
heralding of thy gospel. Do thou at length gather us unto 
that happy eternity which has been obtained for us through the 
blood of the same, thy Son. May we never be separated from 
him, but, being sustained by his power, may we at last be raised 
by him to the highest heavens.—Amen. 


Hecture Eleventh. 


We must now explain more clearly what we yesterday 
stated concerning the eternal kingdom of Christ. In relat- 
ing the dream, the Prophet said—The stone cut out of the 
mountain without hands is the fifth kingdom, by which the 
four kingdoms were to be broken up and destroyed, accord- 


ing to the vision shewn to King Nebuchadnezzar. 
_ now see whether or not this is the kingdom of Christ. 


_ Prophet’s words are these : 


44. And in the days of these kings 
shall the God of heavenset upa king- 
dom, which shall never be destroyed: 
and the kingdom shall not be left 

to other people, but it shall break in 
_ pieces and consume all these king- 

oms, and it shall stand for ever. 

45. Forasmuch as thou sawest 
that the stone was cut out of the 
mountain without hands, and that 
it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, 
the clay, the silver, and the gold; 
the great God hath made known to 
the king what shall come to pass 
hereafter : and the dream is certain, 
and the interpretation thereof sure. 


We must 
The 


44. Et in diebus illis regum 
ilorum suscitabit Deus ccelorum 
regnum, quod in seculum non dis- 
sipabitur,' et regnum hoc populo 
alieno non derelinquetur: confringet 
et conteret omnia illa regna, et 
ipsum stabit perpetuo. 

45. Propterea vidisti, nempe e 
monte excisum lapidem et absque 
manu, qui confregit? ferrum, es, 
testam, argentum et aurum: Deus 
magnus patefecit regi quid futu- 
rum esset postero tempore: et 
verum est somnium, et fidelis inter- 
pretatio ejus. 


The Jews agree with us in thinking this passage cannot 





be otherwise understood than of the perpetual reign of 
Christ, and willingly and eagerly ascribe to the glory of their 
own nation whatever is written everywhere throughout the 
_ Seriptures ; nay, they often cry down many testimonies 
_ of Scripture for the purpose of boasting in their own privi- 
leges. They do not therefore deny the dream to have been 
? Or, shall not be destroyed.—Calvin. 


_ 2 Verbally, “ and broke,” but the copula ought to be rendered as the 
relative.— Calvin. 





182 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XI. — 


sent to King Nebuchadnezzar concerning Christ’s kingdom ; 
but they differ from us, in expecting a Christ of their own. 
Hence they are compelled in many ways to corrupt this 
prophecy ; because, if they grant that the fourth empire or 
monarchy was accomplished in the Romans, they must ne- — 
cessarily acquiesce in the Gospel, which testifies of the arrival 
of that Messiah who was promised in the Law. For Daniel 
here openly affirms that Messiah’s kingdom should arrive at 
the close of the fourth monarchy. Hence they fly to the 
miserable refuge that by the fourth monarchy should be 
understood the Turkish empire, which they call that of the 
Ishmaelites ; and thus they confound the Roman with the 
Macedonian empire. But what pretence have they for 
making only one empire out of two such different ones? 
They say the Romans sprang from the Greeks ; and if we 
grant this, whence did the Greeks spring? Did they not 
arise from the Caspian Mountains and Higher Asia? ‘The 
Romans referred their origin to Troy, and at the time when 
the prophecy ought to be fulfilled, this had become utterly 
obscure—but what is this to the purpose when they had no 
reputation fora thousand years afterwards? But the Turks 
a long time afterwards, namely 600 years, suddenly burst 
forth like a deluge. In such a variety of circumstances, 
and at such a distance of time, how can they form one 
single kingdom? Then they shew no difference between 
themselves and the rest of the nations. For they recall us 
to the beginning of the world, and in this way make one 
kingdom out of two, and this mixture is altogether without 
reason, or any pretension to it. There is no doubt then, 
that Daniel intended the Romans by the fourth empire, 
since we yesterday saw, how in a manner contrary to nature, 
that empire ultimately perished by intestine discord. No 
single monarch reigned there, but only a democracy. All 
thought themselves to be equally kings, for they were all 
related. This union ought to have been the firmest bond of 
perpetuity. But Daniel here witnesses beforehand, how, 
even if they were intimately related, that kingdom would 
not be social, but would perish by its own dissensions. 
Finally, it is now sufficiently apparent that the Prophet’s 








CHAP. 11. 44,45. COMMENTARIES ON DANTEL. 183 


words cannot be otherwise explained than of the Roman 
empire, nor can they be drawn aside, except by violence, 
to the Turkish empire. 

I shall now relate what our brother Anthony has sug- 
gested to me, from a certain Rabbi Barbinel,' who seems to 
excel others in acuteness. He endeavours to shew by six 
principal arguments, that the fifth kingdom cannot relate 
to our Christ—Jesus, the sonof Mary. He first assumes this 
principle, since the four kingdoms were earthly, the fifth 
cannot be compared with them, except its nature is the 
same. The comparison would be, he says, both inappropriate 
and absurd. As if Scripture does not always compare the 
celestial kingdom of God with those of earth! for it is 
neither necessary nor important for all points of a compa- 
rison to be precisely similar. Although God shewed to 
the king of Babylon the four earthly monarchies, it does 
not follow that the nature of the fifth was the same, since 
it might be very different. Nay, if we weigh all things 
rightly, it is necessary to mark some difference between 
those four and this last one. The reasoning, therefore, of 
that rabbi is frivolous, when he infers that Christ’s kingdom 
ought to be visible, since it could not otherwise correspond 
with the other kingdoms. The second reason, by which he 
opposes us, is this,—if religion makes the difference between 
kingdoms, it follows that the Babylonian, and Persian, and 
Macedonian are all the same; for we know that all those 
nations worshipped idols, and were devoted to superstition ! 
The answer to so weak an argument is easy enough, namely, 
these four kingdoms did not differ simply in religion, but 
God deprived the Babylonians of their power, and transfer- 


The Rabbi Barbinel, to whose opinion Calvin’s attention was drawn, 
was the celebrated Jewish statesman and commentator, Isaac Abarbanel. 
He claimed descent from the family of King David, being born in Lisbon 
1437, and died at Venice 1508. From Dr. M‘Caul’s preface to Tegg’s 
Prideaux, (1845,) we learn that his “ Commentary to Daniel” was enti- 
tled Mayene ha-yeshuah, and published after his death in 1551, 4to, and 
also at Amsterdam, 1647. The younger Buxtorf translated it into Latin, 
and it was refuted at length by Carpzov, Hulsius, and Varenius. Several 
of his works are still unprinted. He was a strong opponent of the Chris- 
tian interpretation ot Daniel, and an equally determined combatant of the 
rationalistic views of Moses the Egyptian, the son of Maimon. 











1 
j 
184 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XI. 
‘ 


red the monarchy to the Medes and Persians ; and by the 
same providence of God the Macedonians succeeded them ; 
and then, when all these kingdoms were abolished, the 
Romans possessed the sway over the whole East. We have 
already explained the Prophet’s meaning. He wished simply 
to teach the Jews this,—they were not to despair through 
beholding the various agitations of the world, and its sur- 
prising and dreadful confusion ; although those ages were 
subject to many changes, the promised king should at length 
arrive. Hence the Prophet wished to exhort the Jews 
to patience, and to hold them in suspense by the expecta- 
tion of the Messiah. He does not distinguish these four 
monarchies through diversity of religion, but because God 
was turning the world round like a wheel while one nation 
was expelling another, so that the Jews might apply all 
their minds and attention to that hope of redemption which 
had been promised through Messiah’s advent. 

The third argument which that rabbi brings forward may 
be refuted without the slightest trouble. He gathers from 
the words of the Prophet that the kingdom of our Christ, 
the son of Mary, cannot be the kingdom of which Daniel 
speaks, since it is here clearly expressed that there should 
be no passing away or change of this kingdom: 7 shall not 
pass on to another or a strange people. But the Turks, says 
he, occupy a large portion of the world, and religion among 
Christians is divided, and many reject the doctrine of the 
Gospel. It follows, then, that Jesus, the son of Mary, is not 
that king of whom Daniel prophesied—that is, about whom 
the dream which Daniel explained occurred to the king of 
Babylon. But he trifles very foolishly, because he assumes : 
what we shall ever deny—that Christ’s kingdom is visible. 
For however the sons of God are dispersed, without any 
reputation among men, it is quite clear that Christ’s king- 
dom remains safe and sure, since in its own nature it is not 
outward but invisible. Christ did not utter these words in 
vain, “ My kingdom is not of this world.” (John xviii. 36.) 
By this expression he wished to remove his kingdom from 
the ordinary forms of government. Although, therefore, the 
Turks have spread far and wide, and the world is filled 











OMAP.11.44,45. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 185 


with impious despisers of God, and the Jews yet occupy a 
part of it, still Christ’s kingdom exists and has not been 
transferred to any others. Hence this reasoning is not only 
weak but puerile. 

A fourth argument follows:—It seems very absurd that 
Christ, who was born under Octavius or Augustus Cesar, 
should be the king of whom Daniel prophesied. For, says 
he, the beginning of the fourth and fifth monarchy was 
the same, which is absurd ; for the fourth monarchy ought 
to endure for some time, and then the fifth should succeed 
it. But here he not only betrays his ignorance, but his 
utter stupidity, since God so blinded the whole people that 
they were like restive dogs. I have had much conversation 
with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety 
or a grain of truth or ingenuousness—nay, I have never 
found common sense in any Jew. But this fellow, who 
seems so sharp and ingenious, displays his own impudence 
to his great disgrace. For he thought the’ Roman mon- 
archy began with Julius Cesar! as if the Macedonian empire 
was not abolished when the Romans took possession of 
Macedon and reduced it to a province, when also Antiochus 
was reduced into order by them—nay, when the third 
monarchy, namely, the Macedonian, began to decline, then 
the fourth, which is the Roman, succeeded it. Reason itself 
dictates to us to reckon in this way, since unless we con- 
fess the fourth monarchy to have succeeded directly on the 
passing away of the third, how could the rest follow on? 
We must observe, also, that the Prophet does not look to 
the Czesars when he treats of these monarchies ; nay, as we 
saw concerning the mingling of races, this cannot in any way 
suit the Ceesars ; for we shewed yesterday how those who 
restrict this passage to Pompey and Cesar are only trifling, 
and are utterly without judgment in this respect. For the 
Prophet speaks generally and continuously of a popular 
state, since they were all mutually related, and yet the 
empire was not stable, through their consuming themselves 
internally by intestine warfare. Since this is the case, we 
conclude this rabbi to be very foolish and palpably absurd 
in asserting the Christ not to be the son of Mary who was 


We ee eee. 





186 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XI. 


born under Augustus, although I do not argue for the king- 
dom of Christ commencing at his nativity. 

His fifth argument is this :—Constantine and other Cxsars 
professed the faith of Christ. If we receive, says he, Jesus 
the son of Mary as the fifth king, how will this suit? as 
the Roman Empire was still in existence under this king. 
For where the religion of Christ flourishes, where he is wor- 
shipped and acknowledged as the only King, that kingdom 
ought not to be separated from his. When therefore Christ, 
under Constantine and his successors, obtained both glory 
and power among the Romans, his monarchy cannot be 
separated from theirs. But the solution of this is easy, as 
the Prophet here puts an end to the Roman Empire when 
it began to be torn in pieces. As to the time when Christ’s 
reign began, I have just said it ought not to be referred 
to the time of his birth, but to the preaching of the Gospel. 
From the time when the Gospel began to be promulgated, 
we know the Roman monarchy to have been dissipated and at 
length to vanish away. Hence the empire did not endure 
through Constantine or other emperors, since their state was 
different ; and we know that neither Constantine nor the 
other Cesars were Romans. From the time of Trojan the 
empire began to be transferred to strangers, and foreigners 
reigned at Rome. We also know by what monsters God 
destroyed the ancient glory’ of the Roman people !—for 
nothing could be more abandoned or disgraceful than the 
conduct of many of the emperors. If any one will but run 
through their histories, he will discover immediately that no 
other people ever had such monsters for rulers as the Ro- 
mans under Heliogabalus and others like him,—I omit Nero 
and Caligula, and speak only of foreigners. The Roman 
Empire was therefore abolished after the Gospel began to be 
promulgated and Christ became generally known throughout 
the world. Thus we observe the same ignorance in this 
argument of the rabbi as in the others. 

The last assertion is,—The Roman empire as yet partially 
survives, hence what is here said of the fifth monarchy can- 


1 This word is omitted in the edition published at Geneva a.pD. 1667, 
but is correctly inserted in that of Bart. Vincentius, A.D. 1571.—T7r. 








CHAP. If. 44,45. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. _ 187 


not belong to the son of Mary ; it is necessary for the fourth 
empire to be at an end, if the fifth king began to reign when 
Christ rose from the dead and was preached in the world. 
I reply, as I have said already, the Roman empire ceased, 
and was abolished when God transferred their whole power 
with shame and reproach to foreigners, who were not only 
barbarians, but horrible monsters! It would have been 
better for the Romans to suffer the utter blotting out of their 
name, rather than submit to such disgrace. We perceive 
how this sixth and last reason vanishes away. I wished to 
collect them together, to shew you how foolishly those Jew- 
ish reasoners make war with God, and furiously oppose the 
clear light of the Gospel. 

I now return to Daniel’s words. He says, A kingdom 
shall come and destroy all other kingdoms. I explained yes- 
terday the sense in which Christ broke up those ancient 
monarchies, which had come to an end long before his ad- 
vent. For Daniel does not wish to state precisely what 
Christ would do at any one moment, but what should happen 
from the time of the captivity till his appearance. If we 
attend to this intention, all difficulty will be removed from 
the passage. The conclusion, therefore, is this; the Jews 
should behold the most powerful empires, which should strike 
them with terror, and utterly astonish them, yet they should 
prove neither stable nor firm, through being opposed to the 
kingdom of the Son of God. But Isaiah denounces curses 


upon all the kingdoms which do not obey the Church of 


God. (Chap. lx. 12.) As all those monarchs erected their 
crests against the Son of God and true piety, with dia- 
bolical audacity, they must be utterly swept away, and 
God’s curse, as announced by the Prophet, must become con- 
spicuous upon them. Thus Christ rooted up all the empires 
of the world. The Turkish empire, indeed, at this day, ex- 
cels in wealth and power, and the multitude of nations under 
its sway; but it was not God’s purpose to explain future 
events after the appearance of Christ. He only wished 
the Jews to be admonished, and prevented from sinking 
under the weight of their burden, since they would be inim- 
minent danger through the rise of so many fresh tyrannies in 


188 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XI. 


the world, and the absence of all repose. God wished, there- 
fore, to brace their minds by fortitude. One reason was 
this—to cause them to dwell upon the promised redemption, 
and to experience how evanescent and uncertain are all 
the empires of the world which are not founded in God, and 
not united to the kingdom of Christ. God, therefore, will 
set up the kingdoms of the heavens, which shall never be dis- 
sipated. It is here worth while to notice the sense in which 
Daniel uses the term “perpetuity.” It ought not to be re- 
stricted to the person of Christ, but belongs to all the pious 
and the whole body of the Church. Christ is indeed eternal 
in himself, but he also communicates his eternity to us, be- 
cause he preserves the Church in the world, and invites us 
by the hope of a better life than this, and begets us again 
by his Spirit to an incorruptible life. The perpetuity, then, 
of Christ’s reign, is twofold, without considering his person. 
First, in the whole body of believers ; for though the Church 
is often dispersed and hidden from men’s eyes, yet it never 
entirely perishes ; but God preserves it by his incomprehen- 
sible virtue, so that it shall survive till the end of the world. 
Then there is a second perpetuity in each believer, since 
each is born of incorruptible seed, and renewed by the Spirit 
of God. The sons of Adam are now not mortal only, but 
bear within them heavenly life ; since the Spirit within them 
is life, as St. Paul says, in the Epistle to the Romans. 
(Chap. viii. 10.) We hold, therefore, that whenever Scrip- 
ture affirms Christ’s reign to be eternal, this is extended to 
the whole body of the Church, and need not be confined to 
his person. We see, then, how the kingdom from which the 
doctrine of the Gospel began to be promulgated, was eter- 
nal; for although the Church was in a certain sense buried, 
yet God gave life to his elect, even in the sepulchre. 
Whence, then, did it happen that the sons of the Church 
were buried, and a new people and a new creation required, 
as in Ps, cii. 18? Hence it easily appears that God is served 
by a remnant, although they are not evident to human ob- 
servation. 

He adds, This kingdom shall not pass away to another 
people. By this phrase the Prophet means that this sove- 








OHAP. 11.44,45. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 189 


reignty cannot be transferred, as in the other instances. 
Darius was conquered by Alexander, and his posterity was 
extinguished, till at length God destroyed that ill-fated 
Macedonian race, until no one survived who boasted himself 
to be sprung from that family. With respect to the Romans, 
although they continued to exist, yet they were so disgrace- 
fully subjected to the tyranny of strangers and barbarians, as 
to be completely covered with shame and utterly disgraced. 
Then, as to the reign of Christ, he cannot be deprived of the 
empire conferred upon him, nor can we who are his members 
lose the kingdom of which he has made us partakers. Christ, 
therefore, both in himself and his members, reigns without 
any danger of change, because he always remains safe and 
secure in his own person. As to ourselves, since we are pre- 
served by his grace, and he has received us under his own 
care and protection, we are beyond the reach of danger ; and, 
as I have already said, our safety is ensured, for we cannot 
be deprived of the inheritance awaiting us in heaven. We, 
therefore, who are kept by his power through faith, as Peter 
says, may be secure and calm, (1 Pet. i. 5,) because whatever 
Satan devises, and however the world attempts various plans 
for our destruction, we shall still remain safe in Christ. We 
thus see how the Prophet’s words ought to be understood, 
when he says that this fifth empire is not to be transferred 
and alienated to another people. ‘The last clause of the 
sentence, which is this, 2¢ shall bruise and break all other 
kingdoms, and shall stand perpetually itself, does not require 
any long exposition. We have explained the manner in 
which Christ’s kingdom should destroy all the earthly king- 
doms of which Daniel had previously spoken ; since whatever 
is adverse to the only-begotten Son of God, must necessarily 
perish and utterly vanish away. A Prophet exhorts all the 
kings of the earth to kiss the Son. (Ps. ii. 12.) Since neither 
the Babylonians, nor Persians, nor Macedonians, nor 
Romans, submitted themselves to Christ, nay, even used 
their utmost efforts to oppose him, they were the enemies of 
piety, and ought to be extinguished by Christ’s kingdom; 
because, although the Persian empire was not in existence 
when Christ appeared in the world, yet its remembrance was 





190 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XI. 


cursed before God. For Daniel does not here touch only 
on those things which were visible to men, but raises our 
minds higher, assuring us most clearly that no true sup- 
port on which we can rest can be found except in Christ 
alone. Hence he pronounces, that without Christ all the 
splendour, and power, opulence, and might of the world, is 
vain, and unstable, and worthless. He confirms the same 
sentiment in the following verse, where God shewed the king 
of Babylon what should happen in the last times, when he 
pointed out a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. 
We stated Christ to be cut out of the mountain without 
hands, because he was divinely sent, so that men cannot 
claim anything for themselves in this respect, since God, 
when treating of the redemption of his own people, speaks 
thus, by Isaiah,—Since God saw no help in the world, he 
relied upon his own arm and his own power. (Ixiii. y. 5.) 
As, therefore, Christ was sent only by his heavenly Father, 
he is said to be cut out without hands. 

Meanwhile, we must consider what I have added in the 
second place, that the humble and abject origin of Christ is 
denoted, since it was like a rough and unpolished stone. 
With regard to the word “mountain,” I have no doubt 
Daniel here wished to shew Christ’s reign to be sublime, and 
above the whole world. Hence the figure of the mountain 
means, in my opinion,—Christ should not spring out of 
the earth, but should come in the glory of his heavenly 
Father, as it is said in the Prophet: And thou, Bethlehem 
Ephratah, art the least among the divisions of Judah; yet out 
of thee shall a leader in Israel arise for me, and his reign 
shall be from the days of eternity. (Micah v. 2.) Daniel, 
then, here condescends to those gross imaginations to which 
our minds are subjected. Because, at the beginning, Christ’s 
dignity did not appear so great as we discern it in the kings 
of the world, and to this day it seems to some obscured by 
the shame of the cross, many, alas! despise him, and do 
not acknowledge any dignity in him. Daniel, therefore, 
now raises aloft our eyes and senses, when he says this stone 
should be cut out of the mountain. Meanwhile, if any one 
prefers taking the mountain for the elect people, I will not 


3 
4 





OHAP. 11. 46. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 191 


object to it, but this seems to me not in accordance with the 
genuine sense of the Prophet. At length he adds, And the 
dream is true, and its interpretation trustworthy. Here 
Daniel securely and intrepidly asserts, that he does not 
bring forward doubtful conjectures, but explains faithfully to 
King Nebuchadnezzar what he has received from the Lord. 


Here he claims for himself the Prophetic authority, to in- 


duce the king of Babylon to acknowledge him a sure and 
faithful interpreter of God. We see how the prophets always 
spoke with this confidence, otherwise all their teaching 
would be useless. If our faith depended on man’s wisdom, 
or on anything of the kind, it would indeed be variable. 
Hence it is necessary to determine this foundation of truth, 
—Whatever the Prophets set before us proceeds from God ; 
and the reason why they so constantly insist on this is, 
lest their doctrine should be supposed to be fabricated by 
men. Thus also in this place, Daniel first says, the dream ts 
true ; as if he said, the dream is not a common one, as the 
poets fable concerning a gate of horn; the dream is not 
confused, as men imagine when scarcely sane, or stuffed 
with meat and drink, or through bodily constitution, either 
melancholy or choleric. He states, therefore, the king of 
Babylon’s dream to have been a true oracle; and adds, zts» 
interpretation is certain. Where, as in the next clause, the 
Prophet again urges his own authority, lest Nebuchadnezzar 
should doubt his divine instructions to explain the truth of 
his dream. It now follows,— 


46. Then the king Nebuchadnez- 46. Tune rex Nebuchadnezer 
zar fell upon his face, and worshipped cecidit in faciem suam, et Danielem 
Daniel, and commanded that they adoravit: et oblationem, et suffi- 
should offer an oblation and sweet tum odoriferum,' jussit illi sacrifi- 
odours unto him. cari. 


_ When the king of Babylon fell upon his face, it is partly 
to be considered as worthy of praise and partly of blame. 
It was a sign of both piety and modesty, when he pros- 
trated himself before God and his Prophet. We know the 
fierceness and pride of kings; nay, we see them act like 
madmen, because they do not reckon themselves among 
mortals, and become blinded with the splendour of their 


1 That is, a sweet-smelling fragrance.—Calvin. 


ee 


192 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XII 


greatness. Nebuchadnezzar was really a very powerful mo- 
narch, and it was difficult for him so to regulate his mind as 
to attribute the glory to God. Thus the dream which Daniel 
explained could not be pleasing to him. He saw his mo- 
narchy cursed before God, and about to perish in ignominy: 
others, too, which should succeed it were ordained in heaven; 
and though he might receive some comfort from the destrue- 
tion of the other kingdoms, yet it was very harsh to deli- 
eate ears, to hear that a kingdom, which appeared most 
flourishing, and which all men thought would be perpetual, 
was of but short duration and sure to perish. As, therefore, 


the king so prostrated himself before Daniel, it is, as I have. 


said,.a sign of piety in thus reverencing God, and in em- 
bracing the prophecy, which would otherwise be bitter and 
distasteful. It was also a sign of modesty, because he 
humbled himself so before God’s Prophet. Thus far the 
king of Babylon is worthy of praise, and we will discuss to- 
morrow the deficiency in his reverence. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since thou hast shewn us by so many, such 
clear and such solid testimonies, that we can hope for no other 
Redeemer than him whom thou hast set forth: and as thou hast 


sanctioned his divine and eternal power by so many miracles, 


and hast sealed it by both the preaching of the Gospel and the 
seal of thy Spirit in our hearts, and dost confirm the same by 
daily experience,—Grant that we may remain firm and stable 
in him. May we never decline from him: may our faith never 
waver, but withstand all the temptations of Satan: and may we 
so persevere in the course of thy holy calling, that we may be 
gathered at length unto that eternal blessedness and perpetual 
rest which has been obtained for us by the blood of the same, 
thy Son.—Amen. 


Lecture Twelfth. 


We said yesterday that King Nebuchadnezzar was worthy 
of praise, because he prostrated himself before Daniel after 
he had heard the narration of his dream and the interpre- 








2 | ee eT eee ee 


- CHAP. Ir. 46. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 193 


tation which was added. For he gave them some testimony 
of piety, since in the person of Daniel he adored the true 
God, as we shall mention hereafter. Hence he shewed 
himself teachable, since the prophecy might exasperate his 
mind; because tyrants can scarcely ever bear anything to 
detract from their power. But he cannot be entirely ex- 
cused. Although he confesses the God of Israel to be the 
only God, yet he transfers a part of his worship to a mortal 
man. ‘Those who excuse this do not sufficiently remember 
how profane men mingle heavenly and earthly things; though 
they occasionally have right dispositions, yet they relax im- 
mediately to their own superstitions. Without doubt the 


confession which we shall meet with directly was confined 


to this single occasion. Nebuchadnezzar was not really and 
completely converted to true piety, so as to repent of his 
errors, but he partially recognised the supreme power to be 
with the God of Israel. This reverence, however, did not 
correct all his idolatries, but by a sudden impulse, as I have 
said, he confessed Daniel to be a servant of the true God. 
At the same time he did not depart from the errors to which 
he had been accustomed, and he afterwards returned to 
greater hardness, as we shall find in the next chapter. So 
also we see Pharaoh giving glory to God, but only for a mo- 
ment, (Exod. ix. 27, and x. 16;) meanwhile he continued 
determinately proud and cruel, and never put off his original 
disposition. Our opinion of the king of Babylon ought to 
be of the same kind, though different in degree. King 
Nebuchadnezzar’s obstinacy was not equal to the pride of 
Pharaoh. Each, indeed, shewed some sign of reverence, but 
neither was truly and heartily submissive to the God of 
Israel. Hence he bows before Daniel, not thinking him a 
God, but mingling and confounding, as profane men do, 
black and white; and we know that from the beginning 
even the dullest men had some perception of the only God. 
For no one ever denied the existence of a Supreme Deity, 
but men afterwards fabricated for themselves a multitude 
of gods, and transferred a part of the divine worship to 
mortals. As King Nebuchadnezzar was involved in these 
errors, we are not surprised at his adoring Daniel, and at the 
VOL. I. | N 


194 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XII. 


same time confessing there is but one God! And at this 
day we-see how allin the papacy confess this truth, and yet 
they tear up the name of God, not in word, but in reality ; 
for they so divide the worship of God, that each has part of 
the spoil and the plunder. Daniel relates what experience 
even now teaches us. This adoration was, it is true, com- 
monly received among the Chaldeans, since the Orientals 
were always extravagant in their ceremonies, and we know 
their kings to have been adored as gods. But since the word 
for sacrificing is here used, and the word MM3, mencheh, 
for “offering” also occurs, it is quite clear that Daniel was 
worshipped without consideration, as if he had been a demi- 
god dropped down from heaven. Hence we must conclude 
that King Nebuchadnezzar did wrong in offering this honour 
to Daniel. | 

_ There ought to be moderation in our respect for God's 
Prophets, as we should not extol them beyond their deserts ; 
we know the condition on which the Lord calls us forth— 
that he alone may be exalted, while all his teachers, and 
prophets, and servants, should remain in their own position. 
A question arises concerning the Prophet himself,—Why did 
he allow himself to be worshipped? For if Nebuchadnezzar 
sinned, as we have said, the Prophet had no excuse for allow- 
ing it. Some commentators labour anxiously to excuse 
him; but if he passed this by in silence, we must be com- 
pelled to confess him in some degree corrupted by the 
allurements of the court, since it is difficult to be familiar 
there without immediately being subject to its contagion. 
The defence of any man, however perfect, ought never to 
interfere with this fixed principle—nothing must be sub- 
tracted from the honour of God, and—it is a mark of 
perverseness whenever and howsoever the worship which 
is peculiar to God is transferred to creatures. Perhaps 
Daniel decidedly refused this, and so restrained the folly of 
the king of Babylon; but I leave the point in doubt, as 
nothing is said about it. Although it is scarcely probable 
that he took no notice at the time, when he saw the honour 
of God partly transferred to himself; for this would have 
been to make himself a partaker of sacrilege and impiety. 








CHAP. IT. 47, COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 195 


A holy Prophet could scarcely fall into this snare. We know 
many things are omitted in the narrative, and Daniel does 
not record what was done, but what the king ordered. He 
prostrated himself on his face; but perhaps Daniel shewed 
this to be unlawful. When he ordered sacrifice to be offered, 
Daniel might have rejected it as a great sin. For Peter 
properly corrected the error of Cornelius, which was more toler- 
able, since he wished to adore Peter after the common fashion. 
If, therefore, the Apostle did not endure this, but boldly re- 
buked the deed, (Acts x. 26,) what must be said about the 
Prophet? But, as I have said, I dare not assert anything on 
either side, unless what conjecture renders probable, that 
God's servant rejected this preposterous honour. If, indeed, 
he allowed it, he had no excuse for his sin; but still, as we 
have said, it is very difficult for those who desire to retain 
their purity to have much intercourse with courts, without 
contracting some spots of corruption. We see this even in 
the person of Joseph. Although he was completely dedi- 
cated to God, yet in his language, as shewn by his swear- 
ing, he was tainted by the Egyptian custom. (Gen. xlii. 15.) 
And since this was sinful in him, the same may be said of 
Daniel. Let us go on :— 


47. The king answered unto Da- 47. Respondit rex Danieli, et dixit, 
niel, and said, Of a truth it is, that ExveroDeusyester ipse est Deusdeo- 
your God is a God of gods, anda Lord rum, et dominus regum, et revelater 
of kings, and a revealer of secrets, arcanorum, quod potueris revelare 
seeing thou couldestrevealthissecret. arcanum hoc. 


This confession is quite pious and holy, and is fraught 
with rectitude and sincerity; it may even be taken as a 
proof of true conversion and repentance. But, as I have 
lately reminded you, profane men are sometimes seized with 
an admiration of God; and then they profess largely and 
copiously whatever may be expected from God’s true wor- 
shippers. Still this is but momentary, for all the while they 
remain wrapt up in their own superstitions. God, therefore, 
_ extorts this language from them, when they speak so pious- 
ly ; but they inwardly retain their faults, and afterwards 
easily fall back to their accustomed habits—as a memorable 
example will shortly prove to us. Whatever sense be adopt- 
ed, God wished his glory to be proclaimed by the mouth of 


196 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XIU. 


the profane king, and desired him to be the herald of his owr 
power and influence. But this was peculiarly profitable tc 
those Jews who still remained firm in their allegiance ; for 
the greater part had revolted—notoriously enough, and had 
degenerated with great facility from the pure worship of 
God. When led into captivity, they became idolaters and 
apostates, and denied the living God; but a small number 
of the pious remained ; God wished to promote their benefit, 
and to strengthen their minds when he drew this confession 
from the king of Babylon. But another object was gained, 
since the king as well as all the Chaldeans and Assyrians 
were rendered more excuseless. For if the God of Israel 
was truly God, why did Belin the meantime retain his rank ? 
He ts the God of gods—then it must be added at once, he is 
the enemy of false gods. We observe how Nebuchadnezzar 
here mingles light with darkness, and black with white, 
while he confesses the God of Israel to be supreme among 
gods, and yet continues to worship other deities. For if the 
God of Israel obtains his right, all idols vanish away. Hence, 
Nebuchadnezzar contends with himself in this language. 
But, as I have said, he is seized by a violent impulse, and is 
not quite in his senses when he so freely declares the power 
of the only God. 

As far then as words go, he says, truly your God 7s him- 
self a God of gods. The particle truly is by no means super- 
fluous here ; it is strongly affirmative. For if any one had 
inquired of him whether Bel and other idols were to be wor- 
shipped as gods, he might answer, “ yes ;” but doubtfully, 
and according to pre-conceived opinion, since all supersti- 
tious worshippers are perplexed, and if ever they defend 
their superstitions, they do so with the rashness which the 
devil suggests, but not according to their judgment. In 
truth, their minds are not composed when they dare to as- 
sert their own superstitions to be pious and holy. But 
Nebuchadnezzar seems here formally to renounce his own 
errors; as if he had said—Hitherto I acknowledged other 
gods, but I now change my opinion; I have discovered your 
God to be the chief of all gods. And, truly, if he really 
spoke his own mind, he might perceive he was doing injus- 





CHAP. II. 47. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 197 


tice to his own idols, if there was any divinity in them ; 
Israel’s God was confessedly held in utter hatred and abomi- 
nation by the profane nations. By extolling him above all 
gods, he degrades Bel and the whole crew of false gods 
which the Babylonians worshipped. But, as we have said, 
he was swayed by impulse and spoke without thinking. He 
was in a kind of enthusiasm, since God astonished him, and 
then drew him on to wonder at and to declare his own power. 
He calls him Lord of kings, by which eulogium he claims 
for him the supreme dominion over the world ; he means to 
assert that Israel’s God not only excels all others, but holds 
the reins of government over the world. For if he is the 
Lord of kings, all people are under his hand and dominion ! 
and the multitude of mankind cannot be drawn away from 
his empire, if he rules their very monarchs. We understand, 
therefore, the meaning of these words, namely, whatever 
deity is worshipped is inferior to the God of Israel, because 
he is high above all gods; then his providence rules over 
the world, while he is Lord of all peoples and kings, and 
governs all things by his will. 

He adds, he ws a revealer of secrets. This is our proof 
of Divinity, as we have said elsewhere. For Isaiah, when 
wishing to prove the existence of only one God, takes these 
two principles, viz., Nothing happens without his permission ; 
and his foreseeing all things. (Chap. xlviii. 3-5.) These 
two principles have been inseparably united. Although 
Nebuchadnezzar did not understand what was the true pecu- 
liarity of Divinity, yet he is here impelled by the secret in- 
stinct of God’s Spirit clearly to set forth God’s power and 
wisdom. Hence he confesses the God of Israel to excel all 
gods, since he obtains power in the whole world, and nothing 
whatever is concealed from him. He adds the reason— 
Daniel could reveal that secret. This reason does not seem 
a very good one ; for he infers the world to be governed by 
one God, because Daniel made this secret known. But 
then “ this has no reference to his power.” The answer to 
this remark is easy ; we shewed elsewhere how we ought not 
to imagine a god like Apollo who can only predict future 
events. And, truly, it is far too insipid to attribute to God 





198 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XII. 


simple prescience, as if the events of the world had any other 
dependence than upon his power; for God is said to have a 
previous knowledge of future events, because he determined 
what he wished to have done. Hence Nebuchadnezzar 
concluded the dominion of the whole world to be in God's 
hands, because he could predict futurity ; for unless he had 
the full power over the future, he could not predict anything 
with certainty. As, therefore, he really predicts future 
events, this clearly determines all things to be ordained by 
him, and disproves the existence of chance, while he fulfils . 
whatever he has decreed. 

Let us learn from this passage, how insufficient it is to 
celebrate God’s wisdom and power with noisy declamation, 
unless we at the same time reject all superstitions from 
our minds, and so cling to the only God as to bid all others 
heartily farewell. No fuller verbal confession can be re- 
quired than is here set before us; and yet we observe how 
Nebuchadnezzar was always involved in Satan’s impostures, 
because he wished to retain his false gods, and thought it 
sufficient to yield the first place to the God of Israel. Let us 
learn again, to do our best in purging the mind from all 
superstitions, that the only God may pervade all our senses. 
Meanwhile, we must observe how severe and dreadful a 
judgment awaits Papists, and all like them, who at least 
ought to be imbued with the rudiments of piety, while they 
confess the existence of but one supreme God, and yet 
mingle together a great multitude of deities, and dishonour 
both his power and wisdom, and at the same time observe 
what is here said by a profane king. For the Papists not 
only divide God’s power, by distributing it in parts to each 
of their saints; but also when they speak of God himself, 
they fancy him as knowing all things beforehand, and yet 
leaving all things contingent on man’s free will ; first creat- 
ing all things, and then leaving every event in suspense. 
Hence heaven and earth, as they bear either men’s merits 
or crimes, at one time become useful, and at another adverse 
to mankind. ‘Truly enough, neither rain, nor heat, nor 
cloudy nor serene weather, nor anything else happens with- 
out God’s permission ; and whatever is adverse is a sign of 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


CHAP. II. 48. 199 


his curse; whatever is prosperous and desirable is the sign 
of his favour. This, indeed, is true, but when the Papists 
lay their foundation in the will of man, we see how they 
deprive God of his rights. Let us learn, then, from this pas- 
sage, not to attribute to God less than was conceded by this 


profane king. 


48. Then the king made Daniel 
a great man, and gave him many 
great gifts, and made him ruler over 
the whole province of Babylon, and 
chief of the governors over all the 
wise men of Babylon. 


48. Tune rex Danielem magni- 
ficavit, et munera preeclara, et mag- 
na dedit ei,! et constituit eum super 
totam povinciam Babylonis, et ma- 
gistrum procerum super omnes 
sapientes Babylonis. 


Here also another point is added, namely, how King 
Nebuchadnezzar raised God’s Prophet and adorned him with 
the highest honours. We have spoken of that preposterous 
worship which he himself displayed and commanded others 
to offer. As far as concerns gifts and the discharge of 
public duties, we can neither condemn Nebuchadnezzar for 
honouring God’s servant, nor yet Daniel for suffering himself 
to be thus exalted. All God’s servants ought to take care 
not to make a gain of their office, and we know how very 
pestilent the disease is when prophets and teachers are ad- 
dicted to gain, or easily receive the gifts offered them. or 
where there is no contempt of money, many vices necessarily 
spring up, since all avaricious and covetous men adulterate 
God’s word and make a traffic of it. (2 Cor. 11.17.) Hence 
all prophets and ministers of God ought to watch against 
being covetous of gifts. But as far as Daniel is concerned, 
he might receive what the king offered him just as Joseph 
could lawfully undertake the government of the whole of 
Egypt. (Gen. xli. 40.) There is no doubt that Daniel had 
other views than his private and personal advantage. We 
must not believe him covetous of gain while he bore his 
exile so patiently, and, besides this, when at the hazard of 
his life he had preferred abstinence from the royal food to 
alienating himself from the people of God. As he manifestly 
preferred the shame of the cross by which God’s people 
were then oppressed, to opulence, luxury, and honour, who 
will think him blinded by avarice through receiving gifts ? 


Or, gave him many gifts, as some translate.—Calvin. 





200 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XII- 


But since he saw the sons of God miserably and cruelly op- 
pressed by the Chaldeans, he wished as far as he could to 
succour them in their miseries. As he well knew this 
would afford some consolation and support to his race, he 
allowed himself to be made prefect of a province. And the 
same reason influenced him to seek some place of authority 
for his companions, as follows,— 

49. Then Daniel requested of the 4y. Et Daniel petiit a rege; et 
king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, constituit super opus! provincise 
and Abed-nego, over the affairs of Babylonis Sidrach, Mesach, et Abed- 


the province of Babylon: but Daniel nego: Daniel autem erat in porta 
sat in the gate of the king. recis, 


Some ambition may be noticed here in the Prophet, since 
he procures honours for his own companions. For when the 
king spontaneously offers him a command, he is obliged to 
accept it; he need not offend the mind of the proud king. 
There was a necessity for this, because he himseif seeks from 
the king prefectships for others. What shall we say was 
the origin of this conduct? As I have already hinted, Daniel 
may be here suspected of ambition, for it might be charged 
against him as a crime that he made a gain of the doctrine 
which he had been divinely taught. But he rather regarded 
his people, and wished to bring some comfort to them when 
oppressed. For the Chaldeans treated their slaves tyranni- 
cally, and we are aware how the Jews were utterly hated 
by the whole world. When therefore Daniel, through the 
feeling of pity, seeks some consolation from the people of God, 
there is no reason for accusing him of any fault, because he 
was not drawn aside by private advantage, and did not de- 
sire honours for either himself or his companions; but he 
was intent on that object to enable his companions to 
succour the Jews in their troubles. Hence the authority 
which he obtains for them has no other object than to cause 
the Jews to be treated a little more humanely, as their 
condition would not be so harsh and bitter while they haye 
prefects of their own people who should study to treat them as 
brethren. We now see how Daniel may be rightly acquitted 
of this charge without any difficulty or argument; for the 


1 Or, administration.— Calvin. 


CHAP. III. 1. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 201 


matter itself is sufficiently clear, and we may readily collect 
that Daniel was both pious and humane, and free from all 
charge of sin. From the words—was in the king’s gate, we 
ought not to understand his being a gate-keeper. Some 
suppose this phrase to be used, because they were ac- 
customed to exercise justice there; but they transfer to the 
Chaldeans what Scripture teaches us of the Jews. I take it 
more simply. Daniel was chief over the king’s court, since 
he held the supreme command there ; and that sense is more 
genuine. Besides, we are fully aware of the custom of the 
Chaldeans and Assyrians to make the approach to the king 
difficult. Daniel is therefore said to be at the gate, to pre- 
vent any entrance into the king’s palace, unless by his per- 
mission. It now follows,— 


CHAPTER THIRD. 


1. Nebuchadnezzar the king made an 1. Nebuchadnezer rex fecit 
image of gold, whose height was three- imaginem ex auro, altitudo ejus 
score cubits, and the breadth thereof cubitorum sexaginta, latitudo cu- 
six cubits: he set it up in the plain of bitorum sex: erexit eam in plani- 
Dura, in the province of Babylon. tie Dura,' in provincia Babylonis. 

Very probably this statue was not erected by King 
Nebuchadnezzar within a short period, as the Prophet does 
not notice how many years had passed away ; for it is not 
probable that it was erected within a short time after he 
had confessed the God of Israel to be the Supreme Deity. 
Yet as the Prophet is silent, we need not discuss the matter. 
Some of the rabbis think this statue to have been erected as 
an expiation; as if Nebuchadnezzar wished to avert the 
effect of his dream by this charm, as they say. But their 
guess is most frivolous. We may inquire, however, whether 
Nebuchadnezzar deified himself or really erected this statue to 
Bel the principal deity of the Chaldeans, or invented some 
new-fangled divinity? Many incline to the opinion that he 
wished to include himself in the number of the deities, but 


1 Some make this word a noun appellative, and translate it, “ habitable 
land,” but the following translation is more correct :—He placed an image 
on the plains of Dura,—Calvin. 





202 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XII. 


this is not certain—at least I do not think so. Nebuchad- 
nezzar seems to me rather to have consecrated this statue to 
some of the deities; but, as superstition is always joined 
with ambition and pride, very likely Nebuchadnezzar was 
also induced by vain glory and luxury to erect this statue. 
As often as the superstitious incur expense in building 
temples and in fabricating idols, if any one asks them 
their object, they immediately reply—they do it in honour 
of God! At the same time they are all promoting their 
own fame and reputation. All the superstitious reckon 
God's worship valueless, and rather wish to acquire for them- 
selves favour and estimation among men. I readily admit 
this to have been Nebuchadnezzar’s intention, and indeed I 
am nearly certain of it. But at the same time some pre- 
tence to piety was joined with it; for he pretended that 
he wished to worship God. Hence, also, what I formerly 
mentioned appears more clear, namely,—King Nebuchad- 
nezzar was not truly and heartily converted, but rather 
remained fixed in his own errors, when he was attributing 
glory to the God of Israel. As I have already said, that 
confession of his was limited, and he now betrays what he 
nourished in his heart ; for when he erected the statue he 
did not return to his own natural disposition, but rather his 
impiety, which was hidden for a time, was then detected. 
For that remarkable confession could not be received as a 
proof of change of mind. All therefore would have said he 
was a new man, if God had not wished it to be made plain 
that he was held bound and tied by the chains of Satan, and 
was still a slave to his own errors. God wished then to pre- 
sent this example to manifest Nebuchadnezzar to be always 
impious, although through compulsion he gave some glory 
to the God of Israel. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since our minds have so many hidden recesses 
that nothing is more difficult than thoroughly to purge them from 
all fiction and lying,—Grant, I say, that we may honestly examine 
ourselves. Do thou also shine upon us with the light of thy Holy 
Spirit; may we truly acknowledge our hidden faults and put 


ie 
’ 


OHAP. III. 1. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 203 


them far away from us, that thou mayest be our only God, and 
our true piety may obtain the palm of thine approbation. May 
we offer thee pure and spotless worship, and meanwhile may we 
conduct ourselves in the world with a pure conscience ; and may 
each of us be so occupied in our duties as to consult our brother’s 
advantage as well as our own, and at length be made partakers of 
that true glory which thou hast prepared for usin heaven through 
Christ our Lord.—Amen. 


Lecture Thirteenth. 


We began in the last Lecture to treat of THE GOLDEN 
Statue which Nebuchadnezzar erected, and placed in the 
plain or open country of Dura. We stated this statue to have 
been erected for a religious reason, when the ambition of that 
king or tyrant was at its full sway, which we may always 
observe in the superstitious. For although they always put 
forward the name of God, and persuade themselves that they 
are worshipping God, yet pride always impels them to desire 
the approbation of the world. Such was the desire of King 
Nebuchadnezzar in erecting this statue, as its very magni- 
tude displays. For the Prophet says, the height of the statue 
was sixty cubits, and its breadth six cubits. Such a mass 
must have cost much expense, for the image was made of 
gold. Probably this gold was acquired by much rapine and 
plunder ; but whether it was so or not, we may here view, 
as I have said, the profane king so worshipping God as 
to propagate the remembrance of his own name to posterity. 
The region in which he placed the image seems to imply 
this. Without doubt the Prophet here points out some cele- 
brated place which men were accustomed to frequent for the 
sake of merchandise and other necessities. But as far as 
the king’s special intention is concerned, we stated their 
conjecture to be out of place who think the statue to have 
been erected for the sake of expiating his dream. It is 
more probable, since the Jews were dispersed throughout 
Assyria and Chaldea, that this image was erected, lest those 
foreigners who were exiles from their country should intro- 
duce any novelty. This conjecture carries some weight with 


| 
aid | 
4 





204: COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XIII. 
it; for Nebuchadnezzar knew the Jews to be so attached to 
the God of their fathers as to be averse to all the supersti- 
tions of the Gentiles. He feared, therefore, lest they should 
seduce others to their own opinions, and he wished to coun- 
teract this by erecting a new statue, and commanding all 
his subjects to bow down to it. Meanwhile, we see how 
quickly the acknowledgment of Israel’s God, whose glory 
and power he had so lately celebrated, had vanished from 
his mind! Now this trophy is erected to reproach him, as 
if he had been vanquished as well as the idols of the heathen. 
But, we have said elsewhere, Nebuchadnezzar never seriously 
acknowledged the God of Israel, but by a sudden impulse 
was compelled to confess him to be the Supreme and only 
God, though he was all the while drowned in his own super- 
stitions. Hence his confession was rather the result of asto- 
nishment, and did not proceed from true change of heart. 
Let us now come to the remainder: 


2. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king 
sent to gather together the princes, 
the governors, and the captains, the 
judges, the treasurers, the counsel- 
ors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers 
of the provinces, to come to the de- 
dication of the image which Nebu- 
chadnezzar the king had set up. 


2. Turic Nebuchadnezer rex mi- 
sit ad congregandum satrapas, du- 
ces, et questores, primates, vel 
proceres, Judices, magistratus, op- 
timates, et omnes preefectos proyin- 
ciarum, ut venirent ad dedicationem 
imaginis, quam erexerat Nebuchad- 
nezer rex. 


I do not know the derivation of the word “Satrap ;” but 


manifestly all these are names of magistracies, and I allow 
myself to translate the words freely, since they are not 
Hebrew, and the Jews are equally ignorant of their origin. 
Some of them, indeed, appear too subtle; but they assert 
nothing but what is frivolous and foolish. We must be con- 
tent with the simple expression—he sent to collect the satraps. 


3. Then the princes, the gover- 
nors, and captains, the judges, the 
treasurers, the counsellors, the 
sheriffs, and all the rulers of the 
provinces, were gathered together 
unto the dedication of the image that 
Nebuchadnezzar the king had set 
up; and they stood before the image 
that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 


3. Tune congregati sunt satrape, 
duces, proceres, questores, magis- 
tratus, judices, optimates, et ommes 
preefecti provinciarum ad dedica- 
tionem imaginis, quam erexerat 
Nebuchadnezer rex: et steterunt 
coram imagine quam erexerat Ne- 
buchadnezer. 


Let us add the context, as the subject is continued : 


— 

} al } 
qi 

wr 

af 


] ps a 


CHAP. 111. 3-7. 


4. Then an herald cried aloud, 
To you it is commanded, O people, 
nations, and languages, 

5. That at what time ye hear the 
sound of the cornet, flute, harp, 
sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all 
kinds of music, ye fall down and 
worship the golden image that Ne- 
buchadnezzar the king hath set up. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


205 


4. Et preeco clamabat in fortitu- 
dine :1 Vobis edicitur, populi, gentes, 
et lingue,? 

5. Simulacaudieritis vocem cornu, 
vel, tubce, fistulee, citharee, sambucee, 
psalterii, symphonie, et omnia in- 
strumenta musices: ut procidatis, et 
adoretis imaginem auream, quam 
erexit Nebuchadnezer rex. 


Ido not know of what kind these musical instruments 


were. 


6. And whoso falleth not down 
and worshippeth, shall the same hour 
be cast into the midst of a burning 
fiery furnace. 

7. Therefore at that time, when 
all the people heard the sound of the 
cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, 
and all kinds of music, all the peo- 
ple, the nations, and the languages, 
fell down and worshipped the golden 
image that Nebuchadnezzar the king 
had set up. 


6. Et quisquis non prociderit? et 
adoraverit, eadem hora,‘ projicietur 
in medium fornacem ignis ardentis, 
vel, ardentem. 

7. Itaque simulatque, eadem hora 
atque, audierint omnes populi vocem 
cornu, fistule, cithare, sambuce, 
psalterii, et omnium instrumentorum 
musices, prociderunt omnes populi, 
gentes et lingue adorantes imaginem 
auream, quam erexerat Nebuchad- 
nezer rex. 


We see how Nebuchadnezzar wished to establish among 
all the nations under his sway a religion in which there 


should be no mixture of foreign novelty. 
sion as a cause of disunion in his empire. 


He feared dissen- 
Hence we may 


suppose the king to have consulted his own private ease and 
advantage, as princes are accustomed to consult their own 
wishes rather than God’s requirements in promulgating 
edicts concerning the worship of God. And from the be- 
ginning, this boldness and rashness have increased in the 
world, since those who have had supreme power have always 
dared to fabricate deities, and have proceeded beyond this 
even to ordering the gods which they have invented to be 
worshipped. The different kinds of gods are well known as 
divided into three—the PuiLosopHicat, the Porrrican, and 
the Porricat. They called those gods “PHILOSOPHICAL” which 
natural reason prompts men to worship. Truly, indeed, philo- 
sophers are often foolish when they dispute about the essence 

1 Or, in the midst of the multitude; for Syn hil, may be explained both 
ways.— Calvin. 

* That is, nations of all languages. —Calvin. 


® That is, shall not bend the knee.—Calvin. 
* That is, instantly —Calvin. 


206 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XIII. 


or worship of God; but since they follow their own fancies 
they are necessarily erroneous. For God cannot be appre- 
hended by human senses, but must be made manifest to us 
by his own word; and as he descends to us, so we also in 
turn are raised to heaven. (1 Cor. ii. 14.) But yet philo- 
sophers in their disputes have some pretexts, so as not to 
seem utterly insane and irrational. But the poets have 
fabled whatever pleases them, and thus have filled the world 
with the grossest and at the same time the foulest errors. 
As all theatres resounded with their vain imaginations, 
the minds of the vulgar have been imbued with the same 
delusions ; for we know human dispositions are ever prone to 
vanity. But when the devil adds fire to the fuel, we then 
see how furiously both learned and unlearned are carried 
away. So it happened when they persuaded themselves of 
the truth of what they saw represented in their theatres. 
Thus, that religion which was founded on the authority of 
the Magi was considered certain by the heathen, as they 
called those gods “ PoxiticaL” which were received by the 
common consent of all. Those also who were considered 
prudent said it was by no means useful to object to what 
the philosophers taught concerning the nature of the gods, 
since this would tear asunder ail public rites, and whatever 
was fixed without doubt in men’s minds. For both the 
Greeks and Latins, as well as other barbarous nations, wor- 
shipped certain gods as the mere offspring of opinion, and 
these they confessed to have once been mortal. But philo- 
sophers at least retained this principle—the gods are eternal ; 
and if the philosophers had been listened to, the authority 
of the Magi would have fallen away. Hence the most worldly- 
wise were not ashamed, as I have mentioned, to urge the 
expulsion of philosophy from sacred things. 

With regard to the Ports, the most politic were com- 
pelled to succumb to the petulance of the common people, 
and yet they taught at the same time what the poets feigned 
and fabled concerning the nature of the gods was pernicious. 
This, then, was the almost universal rule throughout the 
world as to the worship of God, and the very foundation of 
piety—namely, no deities are to be worshipped except those 


.4\ oe 
os 
me 
a. 

a 

¥ 

i 

1 


Se 





CHAP. III. 3-7. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 207 


which have been handed down from our forefathers. And 
this is the tendency of the oracle of Apollo which Xenophon! 
in the character of Socrates so greatly praises, namely, every 
city ought to worship the gods of its own country! gr 
when Apollo was consulted concerning the best religion, with 
the view of cherishing the errors by which all nations were 
intoxicated, he commanded them not to change anything in 
their public devotions, and pronounced that religion the best 
for every city and people which had been received from the 
furthest antiquity. This was a wonderful imposture of the 
devil, as he was unwilling to stir up men’s minds to reflect 
upon what was really right, but he retained them in that 
old lethargy—“ Aha! the authority of your ancestors is 
sufficient for you!” The greatest wisdom among the pros 
fane was, as I have said, to cause consent to be taken for 
reason. Meanwhile, those who were supreme either in em- , 
pire, or influence, or dignity, assumed to themselves the 
right of fashioning new deities; for we see how many dedi- 
cated temples to fictitious deities, because they were com- 
manded by authority. Hence it is by no means surprising 
for Nebuchadnezzar to take this license of setting up a 
new deity. Perhaps he dedicated this statue to Bel, who is 
considered as the Jupiter of the Chaldeans; but yet he 
wished to introduce a new religion by means of which his 
memory might be celebrated by posterity. Virgil’ derides 
this folly when he says: 

And he increases the number of deities by altars. For he 
means, however men may erect numerous altars on earth, 
they cannot increase the number of the gods in heaven. 
Thus, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar increased the number of 
the deities by a single altar, that is, introduced a new rite 
to make the statue a monument to himself, and his own 
name famous as long as that religion flourished. Here we 
perceive how grossly he abused his power; for he did not 
consult his own Magi as he might have done, nor even reflect 
within himself whether that religion was lawful or not ; but 


1 Xenophon in Comment., et Cicero de Legibus, lib. ii. § 8. 
2 ABneid, lib. vii. 211, *.. . et numerum Divorum altaribus addit.” 


Heyne reads “ addit ;” Calvin, “ auget.” 





208 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XIII. 


through being blinded by pride, he wished to fetter the 
minds of all, and to compel them to adopt what he desired. 
Hence we gather how vain profane men are when they pre- 
tend to worship God, while at the same time they wish to 
be superior to God himself. For they do not admit any 
pure thought, or even apply themselves to the knowledge of 
God, but they make their will law, just as it pleases them. 
They do not adore God, but rather their own fiction. Such 
was the pride of King Nebuchadnezzar, as appears from his 
own edict : 

King Nebuchadnezzar sent to collect all the satraps, gene- 
rals, and prefects, to come to the dedication of the image, 
which King Nebuchadnezzar had erected. The name of the 
king is always added, except in one place, as though the 
royal power raised mortals to such a height that they could 
fabricate deities by their own right! We observe how the 
king of Babylon claimed the right of causing the statue to 
be worshipped as a god, while it was not set up by any pri- 
vate or ordinary person but by the king himself. While 
the royal power is rendered conspicuous in the world, 
kings do not acknowledge it to be their duty to restrain 
themselves within the bounds of law, so long as they 
remain obedient to God. And at this day we see with 
what arrogance all earthly monarchs conduct themselves. 
For they never inquire what is agreeable to the word of 
God, and in accordance with sincere piety; but they de- 
fend the errors received from their forefathers, by the inter- 
position of the royal name, and think their own previous 
decision to be sufficient, and object to the worship of any god, 
except by their permission and decree. With respect to the 
dedication, we know it to have been customary among the 
heathens to consecrate their pictures and statues before they 
adored them. And to this day the same error is maintained in 
the Papacy. Foras long as images remain with the statuary 
or the painter, they are not venerated; but as soon as an 
image is dedicated by any private ceremony, (which the 
Papists call a “ devotion,”) or by any public and solemn rite, 
the tree, the wood, the stone, and the colours become a god! 
The Papists also have fixed ceremonies among their exor- 





OHAP. II. 2-7. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 209 


cisms in consecrating statues and pictures. Nebuchadnezzar, 
therefore, when he wished his image to be esteemed in the 
place of God, consecrated it by a solemn rite, and as we 
have said, this usage was customary among the heathen. 
He does not here mention the common people, for all could 
not assemble in one place ; but the prefects and elders were 
ordered to come, and they would bring numerous attendants 
with them; then they bring forward the king’s edict, and 
each takes care to erect some monument in his own province, 
whence it may spread the appearance of all their subjects 
worshipping as a god the statue which the king had erected. 

It now follows—AUl the satraps, prefects, generals, elders, 
treasurers, and magistrates came and stood before the image 
which King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. It is not surprising 
that the prefects obeyed the king’s edict, since they had 
no religion but what they had received from their fathers. 
But obedience to the king weighed with them more then 
reverence for antiquity ; as in these times, if any king either 
invents a new superstition, or departs from the papacy, or 
wishes to restore God’s pure worship, a sudden change is 
directly perceived in all prefects, and in all countries, and 
senators. Whyso? Because they neither fear God nor 
sincerely reverence him, but depend on the king’s will and 
flatter him like slaves, and thus they all approve, and if 
_ need be applaud, whatever pleases the king. It is not sur- 
prising then if the Chaldean elders, who knew nothing 
experimentally of the true God or of true piety, are so prone 
to worship this statue. Hence also, we collect the great 
instability of the profane, who have never been taught true 
religion in the school of God. For they will bend every 
moment to any breezes, just as leaves are moved by the 
wind blowing among trees; and because they have never 
taken root in God’s truth, they are necessarily changeable, 
and are borne hither and thither with every blast. But a 
king’s edict is not simply a wind, but a violent tempest, and 
no one can oppose their decrees with impunity ; consequently 
those who are not solidly based upon God’s word, do not act 
from true piety, but are borne away by the strength of the 
storm. 

VOL. I. 0 





— 210 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XII 


It is afterwards added—A herald cried out lustily, or 
among the multitude. This latter explanation does not suit 
so well—the herald crying amidst the multitude—sinee 
there were a great concourse of nations, and the kingdom 
of Babylon comprehended many provinces: The herald, 
therefore, cried with a loud voice, An edict is gone forth for 
you, O nations, peoples, and tongues. This would strike 
them with terror, since the king made no exception to his 
command for every province to worship his idol; for each 
person would observe the rest, and when every one sees the 
whole multitude obedient, no one would dare to refuse; 
hence all liberty is at an end. It now follows,—When ye 
hear the sound of the trumpet, or horn, harp, pipe, psaltery, 
sackbut, &e., ye must fall down and adore the vmage. But 
whoever did not fall down before it, should be cast the same 
hour into a burning fiery furnace. This would excite the 
greater terror, since King Nebuchadnezzar sanctioned this 
impious worship with a punishment so severe; for he was 
not content with a usual kind of death, but commanded 
every one who did not worship the statue to be cast into the 
fire. Now, this denunciation of punishment sufficiently de- 
monstrates how the king suspected some of rebellion. There 
would have been no dispute if Jews had not been mixed 
with Chaldeans and Assyrians, for they always worshipped 
the same gods, and it was a prevailing custom with them to . 
worship those deities whom their kings approved. Hence it 
appears that the statue was purposely erected to give the 
king an opportunity of accurately ascertaining whether the 
Jews, as yet unaccustomed to Gentile superstitions, were 
obedient to his command. He wished to cause the sons of 
Abraham to lay aside sincere piety, and to submit to his cor- 
ruptions, by following the example of others, and framing 
their conduct according to the king’s will and the practice 
of the people among whom they dwelt. But we shall treat 
this hereafter. 

Respecting the required adoration, nothing but outward 
observance was needed. King Nebuchadnezzar did not exact 
a verbal profession of belief in this deity, that is, in the 
divinity of the statue which he commanded to be worshipped ; 








CHAP. III. 2-7. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 211 


it was quite sufficient to offer to it merely outward worship. 
We here see how idolatry is deservedly condemned in those 
who pretend to worship idols, even if they mentally refrain 
and only act through fear and the compulsion of regal autho- 
rity. That excuse is altogether frivolous. We see, then, 
how this king or tyrant, though he fabricated this image by 
the cunning of the devil, exacted nothing else than the 
bending the knees of all the people and nations before the 
statue. And truly he had in this way alienated the Jews 
from the worship of the one true God, if this had been ex- 
torted from them. For God wishes first of all for inward 
worship, and afterwards for outward profession. The prin- 
cipal altar for the worship of God ought to be situated in 
our minds, for God is worshipped spiritually by faith, prayer, 
and other acts of piety. (John iv. 24.) It is also necessary 
to add outward profession, not only that we may exercise 
ourselves in God’s worship, but offer ourselves wholly to him, 
and bend before him both bodily and mentally, and devote 
ourselves entirely to him, as Paul teaches. (1 Cor. vii. 34; 
1 Thess. v. 23.) Thus far, then, concerning both the adora- 
tion and the penalty. 

It follows again,—As soon as the burst of the trumpets was 
heard and the sound of so many instruments, all nations, 
peoples, and tongues fell down and adored the image which 
King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Here I may repeat what I 
said before—all men were very obedient to the injunctions of 
their monarchs; whatever they ordered was obeyed, so long 
as it did not cause complete ruin; and they often bore the 
heaviest burdens with the view of perfect conformity. But 
we must remark how our propensities have always a vicious 
tendency. If King Nebuchadnezzar had commanded the 
God of Israel to be worshipped, and all temples to be over- 
thrown, and all altars throughout his empire to be thrown 
down, very great tumults would doubtless have arisen ; for 
the devil so fascinates men’s minds that they remain perti- 
naciously fixed in the errors which they have imbibed. 
Hence the Chaldeans, Assyrians, and others would never 
have been induced to obey without the greatest difficulty. 
But now, on the appearance of the signal, they directly fall 


q 


iy 
% 
i 





212 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XIII. 


down and adore the golden statue. Hence we may learn to 
reflect upon our own character, as in a mirror, with the view 
of submitting ourselves to God’s Word, and of being immoy- 
able in the right faith, and of standing unconquered in our 
consistency, whatever kings may command. Although a 
hundred deaths may threaten us, they must not weaken our 
faith, for unless God restrain us by his curb, we should in- 
stantly start aside to every species of vanity ; and especially 
if a king introduces corruptions among us, we are imme- 
diately carried away by them, and, as we said, are far too 
prone to vicious and perverse modes of worship. The Pro- 
phet repeats again the king’s name to shew us how little the 
multitude thought of pleasing God ; never considering whe- 
ther the worship was sacred and sound, but simply content 
with the king’s nod. The Prophet deservedly condemns 
this easy indifference. 

We should learn also from this passage, not to be induced 
by the will of any man to embrace any kind of religion, but 
diligently to inquire what worship God approves, and so to 
use our judgment as not rashly to involve ourselves in any 
superstitions. Respecting the use of musical instruments, 
I confess it to be customary in the Church even by God’s 
command; but the intention of the Jews and of the Chal- 
deans was different. For when the Jews used trumpets and 
harps and other instruments in celebrating God’s praises, 
they ought not to have obtruded this custom on God as if it 
was the proof of piety ; but it ought to have another object, 
since God wished to use all means of stirring men up from 
their sluggishness, for we know how cold we grow in the 
pursuits of piety, unless we are aroused. God, therefore, 
used these stimulants to cause the Jews to worship him with 
greater fervour. But the Chaldeans thought to satisfy their 
god by heaping together many musical instruments. For, 
like other persons, they supposed God like themselves, for 
whatever delights us, we think must also please the Deity. 
Hence the immense heap of ceremonies in the Papacy, since 
our eyes delight in such splendours; hence we think this to 
‘be required of us by God, as if he delighted in what pleases 
us. This is, indeed, a gross error. There is no doubt that 


a ee £2 awn 





CHAP. III. 2-7. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 213 


the harp, trumpet, and other musical instruments with which 
Nebuchadnezzar worshipped his idol, formed a part of his 
errors, and so also did the gold. God, indeed, wished his 
sanctuary to manifest some splendour ; not that gold, silver, 
and precious stones please him by themselves, but he wished 
to commend his glory to his people, since under this figure 
they might understand why everything precious should be 
offered to God, as it is sacred tohim. The Jews, indeed, had 
many ceremonies, and much of what is called magnificent 
splendour in the worship of God, and still the principle of 
spiritual worship yet remained among them. The profane, 
while they invented gross deities which they reverenced 
according to their pleasure, thought it a proof of perfect 
sanctity, if they sang beautifully, if they used plenty of gold 
and silver, and if they employed showy utensils in these 
sacrifices. I must leave the rest for to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we always wander miserably in our 
thoughts, and in our attempts to worship thee we only profane 
the true and pure reverence of thy Divinity, and are easily drawn 
aside to depraved superstition,—Grant that we may remain in 
pure obedience to thy word, and never bend aside from it in any 
way. Instruct us by the unconquered fortitude of thy Spirit. 
May we never yield to any terrors or threats of man, but perse- 
vere in reverencing thy name even to the end. However the 
world may rage after its own diabolic errors, may we never turn 
out of the right path, but continue in the right course in which 
thou inyitest us, until, after finishing our race, we arrive at that 
happy rest which is laid up for us in heaven, through Christ 
our Lord.—Amen. 


Lecture Sourteenth. 


8. Wherefore at that time certain 8. Itaque statim,! appropinqua- 
Chaldeans came near, and accused runt viri Chaldei, et vociferati sunt 
the Jews. accusationem contra Lludeos.?* 


+ The same hour.—Calvin. 

* That is, accused them clamorously and with,tumult. Others trans- 
late, “ brought forward an accusation.” For box, akel, signifies to 
s¢ devour,” and they say that it is used metaphorically for “ to accuse” when 


214 


9. They spake, and said to the 
king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live 
for ever. 

10. Thou, O king, hast made a 
decree, that every man that shall 
hear the sound of the cornet, flute, 
harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulci- 
mer, and all kinds of music, shall 
fall down and worship the golden 
image : 

11. And whoso falleth not down 
and worshippeth, that he should be 
cast into the midst of a burning fiery 
furnace. 

12. There are certain Jews, whom 
thou hast set over the affairs of the 
province of Babylon, Shadrach, Me- 
shach, and Abed-nego: these men, 
O king, have not regarded thee; 
they serve not thy gods, nor worship 
the golden image which thou hast 
set up. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 





LECT, XIV. 


9. Loquuti sunt, et dixerunt Ne- 
buchadnezer regi, Rex, in eternum 
vive. 

10. Tu, rex, posuisti edictum, ut 
omnis homo cum audiret vocem cor- 
nu, vel, tubce, fistule, cithare, sam- 
bucee, psalterii, et symphoniz, et 
omnium instrumentorum musices, 
procideret, et adoraret imaginem 
auream. 

11. Et qui non prociderit, et ado- 
raverit, projiciatur in medium, vel, 
intra, fornacem ignis ardentis. 


12. Sunt viri Iudzi, quos ipsos 
posuisti, id est, preefecisti, super ad- 
ministrationem, vel, opus, provincize 
Babylonis, Sadrach, Mesach, et 
Abednego, viri isti non posuerunt 
ad te, rex, cogitationem,' deum tu- 
um? non colunt, et imaginem aure- 
am quam tu erexisti non adorant. 


Although their intention is not here expressed who ac- 


cused Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, yet we gather 
from this event that the thing was most probably done on 
purpose when the king set up the golden image. We see 
how they were observed, and, as we said yesterday, Nebu- 
chadnezzar seems to have followed the common practice of 
kings. For although they proudly despise God, yet they 
arm themselves with religion to strengthen their power, and 
pretend to encourage the worship of God for the single pur- 
pose of retaining the people in obedience. When, therefore, 
the Jews were mingled with Chaldeans and Assyrians, the 
king expected to meet with many differences of opinion, and 
so he placed the statue in a celebrated place by way of trial 
and experiment, whether the Jews would adopt the Baby- 
lonian rites. Meanwhile this passage teaches us how the 
king was probably instigated by his counsellors, as they 
were indignant at strangers being made prefects of the pro- 
vince of Babylon while they were slaves; for they had 
become exiles by the right of warfare. Since then the Chal- 


joined to this noun. But since it also signifies “to ery out,” this sense is 
suitable, as the accusers were clamorous.—Calvin. 

' Others translate, “reason.” —Calvin. 

* Or, “thy gods,” but there is not much difference.—Calvin. 





OHAP. III. 8-1 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 215 


deans were indignant, they were impelled by envy to suggest 
this advice to the king. For how did they so suddenly dis- 
cover that the Jews paid no reverence to the statue, and 
especially Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego? ‘Truly, the 
thing speaks for itself. These men watched to see what the 
Jews would do; and hence we readily ascertain how they, 
from the beginning, laid the snare by advising the king to 
fabricate the statue. And when they tumultuously accuse 
the Jews, we perceive how they were fi!'c with envy and 
hatred. It may be said, they were inflamed with jealousy, 
since superstitious men wish to impose the same law upon 
all, and then their passion is increased by cruelty. But 
simple rivalry, as we may perceive, corrupted the Chaldeans, 
and caused them clamorously to accuse the Jews. 

Jt is uncertain whether they spoke of the whole nation 
generally, namely, of all the exiles, or pointed out those 
three persons only. The accusation was probably restricted 
to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. If these three could 
be broken down, the victory over the rest was easy. But 
few could be found in the whole people hardy enough to 
resist. We may well believe these clamourers wished to 
attack those whom they knew to be spirited and consistent 
beyond all others, and also to degrade them from those 
honours which they could not bear them to enjoy. It may 
be asked, then, why did they spare Daniel, since he would 
never consent to dissemble by worshipping the statue which 
the king commanded to be set up? They must have let 
Daniel alone for the time, since they knew him to be in 
favour with the king ; but they brought the charge against 
these three, because they could be oppressed with far less 
trouble. I think them to have been induced by this cun- 
hing in not naming Daniel with the other three, lest his 
favour should mitigate the king’s wrath. The form of accu- 
sation is added—O king, live for ever! It was the common 
salutation. Thou, O king /—this is emphatic, as if they 
had said, ‘‘Thou hast uttered this edict from thy royal 
authority, whoever hears the sound of the trumpet, or horn, 
harp, pipe, psaltery, and other musical instruments, shall 
fall down before the golden statue ; whoever should refuse to 





216 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XLV. 


do this should be cast into the burning fiery furnace. But 
here are some Jews whom thou hast set over the administration 
of the province of Babylon. They add this through hatred, 
and through reproving the ingratitude of men admitted to 
such high honour and yet despising the king’s authority, and 
inducing others to follow the same example of disrespect. 
We see then how this was said to magnify their crime. The 
king has set them over the province of Babylon, and yet these 
men do not adore the golden image nor worship thy gods. 
Here is the crime. We see how the Chaldeans, throughout 
the whole speech, condemn Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed- 
nego of this single crime—a refusal to obey the king’s edict. 
They enter into no dispute about their own religion, for it 
would not have suited their purpose to allow any question to 
be raised as to the claim their own deities had to supreme 
adoration. ‘They omit, therefore, everything which they 
perceive would not suit them, and seize upon this weapon— 
the king is treated with contempt, because Shadrach, Me- 
shach, and Abed-nego do not worship the image as the king’s 
edict ordered them to do. 

Here, again, we see how the superstitious do not apply their 
minds to the real inquiry how they should piously and pro- 
perly worship God; but they neglect this duty and follow 
their own audacity and lust. Since therefore the Holy 
Spirit sets before us such rashness, as in a mirror, let us learn 
that God cannot approve of our worship unless it be offered 
up with truth. Here human authority is utterly unavailing, ~ 
because unless we are sure that our religion is pleasing to 
God, whatever man can do for us will only add to our weak- 
ness. While we observe those holy men charged with the 
crime of ingratitude and rebellion, we in these times ought 
not to be grieved by it. Those who calumniate us reproach 
us with despising the edicts of kings who wish to bind us 
by their errors ; but, as we shall see by and bye, our defence 
is obvious and easy. Meanwhile we ought to undergo this 
infamy before the world, as if we were disobedient and un- 
manageable; and with respect to ingratitude, even if a 
thousand wicked men should load us with reproaches, we 
must bear their calumnies for the time patiently, until the 





CHAP. Ill. 13-15. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


217 


Lord shall shine upon us as the assertor of our innocence. 


Tt now follows,— 


13. Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his 
rage and fury, commanded to bring 
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. 
Then they brought these men before 
the king. 

14. Nebuchadnezzar spake, and 
said unto them, Js 7¢ true, O Sha- 
drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do 
not ye serve my gods, nor worship 
the golden image which I have set up? 

15. Now, if ye be ready, that at 
what time ye hear the sound of the 
cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, 
and dulcimer, and all kinds of mu- 
sic, ye fall down and worship the 
image which I have made, well: 
but if ye worship not, ye shall be 
cast the same hour into the midst of 
a burning fiery furnace; and who is 
that God that, shall deliver you out 
of my hands? 


13. Tune Nebuchadnezer cum 
iracundia et excandescentia,! jussit 
adduci Sadrach, Mesach, et Abed- 
nego: viri autem illi adduxerunt 
coram rege.” 

14. Loquutus est Nebuchadnezer, 
et dixit illis, Verumne, Sadrach, Me- 
sach, et Abednego, deos meos non 
colitis,? et imaginem auream quam 
statui,t non adoratis ? 

15. Nunc ecce parati eritis,® sim- 
ulac audiveritis vocem cornu, vel, 
tubce, fistule, cithare, sambuer, 
psalterii, symphonie, et omnium in- 
strumentorum musices, ut procidatis, 
et adoretis imaginem quam feci. 
Quoad si non adoraveritis, eadem 
hora projiciemini in medium fornacis 
ignis ardentis ; et quis ille Deus qui 
eruat vos e manu mea? 


This narrative clearly assures us, how kings consult only 
their own grandeur by a show of piety, when they claim the 


place of their deities. 


For it seems very wonderful for 


King Nebuchadnezzar to insult all the gods, as if there was 
no power in heaven unless what he approved of. What god, 
says he, can pluck you out of my hand? Why then did he 
worship any deity? Simply to retain the people by a curb, 
and thus to strengthen his own power, without the slightest 
affection of piety abiding within hismind. At the beginning 
Daniel relates how the king was inflamed with wrath. For 
nothing is more troublesome to kings than to see their au- 
thority despised; they wish every one to be obedient to 
themselves, even when their commands are most unjust. 
After the king is cool again, he asks Shadrach, Meshach, 
and Abed-nego, whether they were prepared to worship his 
god and his golden image? Since he addresses them doubt- 
fully, and gives them a free choice, his words imply modera- 
tion. He seems to free them from all blame, if they will 
; Some translate, fury.—Calvin. 
; We must understand, them.—Calvin. 


* Or rather, my god. — Calvin. * Or, I have erected.—Calvin. 
Some read it interrogatively, Are ye prepared ?—Calvin. 





218 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT, XIV. 


only bow themselves down hereafter. He now adds direetly, 
if ye are not prepared, behold I will throw you into a fur- 
nace of burning fire; and at length breaks forth into that 
sacrilegious and dreadful blasphemy—There is no god who 
can deliver the saints alive out of his hand ! 

We see, then, in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, how kings 
swell with pride, while they pretend some zeal for piety ; 
since in reality no reverence for God influences them, while 
they expect all men to obey every command. And thus, as 
I have said, they rather substitute themselves for God, than 
desire to worship him and promote his glory. This is the 
meaning of the words, the statue which I have created, and 
which I have made; as if he had said, You are not allowed 
to deliberate about worshipping this image or not ; my orders 
ought to be sufficient for you. I have erected it purposely 
and designedly ; it was your duty simply to obey me. We 
see then how he claims the supreme power, by fashioning a 
god. Nebuchadnezzar is not now treating matters of state 
policy ; he wishes the statue to be adored as a deity, be- 
cause he had decreed it, and had promulgated his edict. 
And we must always remember what I have touched upon, 
namely, this example of pride is set before us, to shew us not 
to attach ourselves to any religion with rashness, but to listen 
to God and depend on his authority and commands, since 
if we listen to man, our errors would be endless. Although 
kings are so proud and ferocious, yet we must be guided by 
this rule—Nothing pleases God but what he has commanded 
in his word ; and the principle of true piety is the obedience 
which we ought to render to him alone. With respect to 
blasphemy, it clearly demonstrates my previous assertion, 
however kings put forward some desire for piety, yet they 
despise every deity, and think of nothing but extolling their 
own magnificence. Hence, they traffic in the name of God 
to attract greater reverence towards themselves ; but at the 
same time, if they choose to change their deities a hundred 
times a-day, no sense of religion will hinder them. Religion, 
then, is to the kings of the earth nothing but a pretext; 
but they have neither reverence nor fear of God in their 
minds, as the language cf this profane king proves. What 


a wh 
Eee 


ot 


CHAP. 111. 16-18. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 219 
God ? says he, clearly there is no God. If any one reply— 
he speaks comparatively, since he here defends the glory of 
his own god whom he worshipped, still he utters this blas- 
phemy against all gods, and is impelled by intolerable arro- 
gance and diabolical fury. We are now coming to the prin- 


cipal point where Daniel relates the constancy with which 


Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were endued. 


16. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed- 
nego, answered and said to the king, 
O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not care- 
ful to answer thee in this matter. 


17. If it be so, our God, whom we 
serve, is able to deliver us from the 
burning fiery furnace; and he will 
deliver us out of thine hand, O king. 

18. But if not, be it known unto 
thee, O king, that we will not serve 
thy gods, nor worship the golden 
image which thou hast set up. 


16. Responderunt Sadrach, Me- 
sach, et Abednego, et dixerunt regi ; 
Nebuchadnezer, non sumus soliciti 
super hoc sermone,! quid respondea- 
mus tibi.? 

17. Eece est Deus noster, quem 
nos colimus, potens, id est, potest, 
liberare nos e fornace ignis ardentis, 
et e manu tua, rex eruet. 

18. Et si non, notum sit tibi, O 
rex, quod deos tuos nos non colimus, 
et imaginem auream quam erexisti, 
non adorabimus. 


In this history it is necessary to observe with what un- 
broken spirit these three holy men persisted in the fear of 
God, though they knew they were in danger of instant-death. 
When, therefore, this kind of death was placed straight before 
their eyes, they did not turn aside from the straightforward 
course, but treated God’s glory of greater value than their 
own life, nay, than a hundred lives, if they had so many to 
pour forth, and opportunity had been given them. Daniel 
does not relate all their words, but only their import, in 
which the unconquered virtue of that Holy Spirit, by which 
they had been instructed, is sufficiently evident ; for that 
denunciation was certainly dreadful, when the king said, [f 
ye are not prepared to fall down at the sound of the trumpet 
before the image, it is all over with you, and ye shall be directly 
cast into a furnace of fire. When the king had so fulmi- 


nated, they might have winced, as men usually do, since life 


is naturally dear to us, and a dread of death seizes upon our 
senses. But Daniel relates all these circumstances, to assure 
us of the great fortitude of God’s servants when they are led 
by his Spirit, and yield to no threats, and succumb to no 


1 Or, business.— Calvin. ; 
2 Others translate, we ought not to answer thee about this business ; 


and they think 6 the letter L, to be superfluous, as it often is.—Calvin. 





220 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XIV. 


terrors. ‘They answer the king, We do not need any long 
deliberation. For when they say they care not, they mean by 
this word, the matter is settled; just as that sentence of 
Cyprian is related by Augustine,’ when courtiers persuaded 
him to preserve his life, for it was with great reluctance that 
the emperor devoted him to death, when flatterers on all 
sides urged him to redeem his life by the denial of piety, he 
answered, There can be no deliberation in a matter so sacred ! 
Thus those holy men say, We do not care, we do not enter 
into the consideration of what is expedient or useful, no 
such thing! for we ought to settle it with ourselves never 
to be induced by any reason to withdraw from the sincere 
worship of God. 

If you please to read—we ought not to answer you, the 
sense will be the same. They imply that the fear of death 
was set before them in vain, because they had determined 
and resolved in their inmost souls, not to depart a single 
inch from the true and lawful worship of God. Besides they 
here give a double reason for rejecting the king’s proposal. 
They say God-has sufficient power and strength to liberate 
them ; and then, even if they must die, their life is not of 
so much value as to deny God for the sake of preserving it. 
Hence they declare themselves prepared to die, if the king 
persists in urging his wish for the adoration of the image. 
This passage is therefore worthy of the greatest attention. 
First of all, we must observe the answer—for when men 
entice us to deny the true God we must close our ears, and 
refuse all deliberation ; for we have already committed an 
atrocious insult against God, when we even question the 
propriety of swerving from the purity of his worship through 
any impulse or any reason whatever. And I heartily wish 
every one would observe this! How excellent and striking 
is the glory of God, and how everything ought to yield to it, 
whenever there is danger of its being either diminished or 
obscured. But at this day, this fallacy deceives the multi- 
tude, since they think it lawful to debate whether it is allow- 
able to swerve from the true worship of God for a time, 


‘ Cyprian was martyred under the edict of Valerian, a.p. 257.—See 
Euseb. Eccl. Hist., lib. vii. chap. 10. 





CHAP. 111. 16-18. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 221 


whenever any utility presents itself on the opposite side. 
Just as in our days, we see how hypocrites, of whom the 
world is full, have pretences by which they cloak their de- 
linquencies, when they either worship idols with the impious, 
or deny at one time openly, and at another obliquely, true 
piety. “Oh! what can happen ?—such a one will say—of 
what value is consistency? I see some evident advantage 
if I can only dissemble a little, and not betray what I am. 
Ingenuousness is injurious not only to me privately, but to 
all around me!” Ifa king has none around him who endea- 
vour to appease his wrath, the wicked would give way to 
their passions, and by their greater license would drive him 
to the extremity of cruelty. It is, therefore, better to have 
some mediators on the watch to observe whether the wicked 
are planning anything. Thus, if they cannot openly, they 
may covertly avert danger from the heads of the pious. By 
such reasoning as this, they think they can satisfy God. As 
if Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, had not the same ex- 
cuse ; as if the following thought would not occur to them 
—“ Behold! we are armed with some power in favour of our 
brethren ; now what barbarity, what cruelty will be exercised 
against them, if the enemies of the religion which they pro- 
fess succeed us? For as far as they can, they will overthrow 
and blot out our race and the very remembrance of piety. 
Is it not better for us to yield for a time to the tyranny and 
violent edict of the king than to leave our places empty ?— 
which the furious will by and bye occupy, who will utterly 
destroy our wretched race which is now dreadfully oppressed.” 
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego might, I say, collect all 
these pretences and excuses to palliate their perfidy if they 
had bent the knee before the golden image for the sake of 
avoiding danger; but they did not act thus. Hence, as I 
have already said, God retains his rights entire when his 
worship is upheld without the slightest doubt, and we are 
thoroughly persuaded that nothing is of such importance as 
to render it lawful and right to swerve from that profession 
which his word both demands and exacts. 

On the whole, that security which ought to confirm the 
pious in the worship of God is opposed here to all those tor- 





222 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XIV. 


tuous and mistaken counsels which some men adopt, and 
thus, for the sake of living, lose life itself, according to the 
sentiment of even a profane poet. For of what use is life 
except to serve God’s glory? but we lose that object in life 
for the sake of the life itself—that is, by desiring to live en- 
tirely to the world, we lose the very purpose of living! Thus, 
then, Daniel opposes the simplicity which ought to mark the 
sons of God to all those excuses which dissemblers invent 
with the view of hiding their wickedness by a covering. We 
are not anxious, say they, and why not? Because we haye 
already determined God’s glory to be of more consequence 
than a thousand lives, and the gratification of a thousand 
senses. Hence, when this magnanimity flourishes, all hesi- 
tation will vanish, and those who are called upon to incur 
danger through their testimony for the truth need never 
trouble themselves; for, as I before said, their ears are closed 
to all the enticements of Satan. 

And when they add—God is sufficiently powerful to pre- 
serve us; and if not, we are prepared for death, they point 
out to us what ought to raise our minds above all trials, 
namely, the preciousness of our life in God’s sight, since he 
can liberate us if he pleases. Since, therefore, we have suffi- 
cient protection in God, let us not think any method of pre- 
serving our life better than to throw ourselves entirely on 
his protection, and to cast all our cares upon him. And as 
to the second clause, we must remark this, even if the Lord 
should wish to magnify his own glory by our death, we ought 
to offer up this as a lawful sacrifice; and sincere piety does 
not flourish in our hearts unless our minds are always pre- 
pared to make this sacrifice. Thus I wished to remark these 


things shortly now, and with God’s permission, I will explain 


them fully to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we see the impious carried away by 
their impure desires with so strong an impulse; and while they 
are so puffed up with arrogance, may we learn true humility, and 
so subject ourselves to thee that we may always depend upon thy 


word and always attend to thy instructions. When we have | 


learned what worship pleases thee, may we constantly persist 


a a ae 





CHAP. 111.16-18. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 223 


unto the end, and never be moved by any threats, or dangers, 
or violence, from our position, nor drawn aside from our course; 
but by persevering obedience to thy word, may we shew our 
alacrity and obedience, until thou dost acknowledge us as thy 
sons, and we are gathered to that eternal inheritance which thou 
hast prepared for all members of Christ thy Son.—Amen. 


Lecture Fifteenth. 


We said yesterday that the constancy of Shadrach, Me- 
shach, and Abed-nego, was based upon these two reasons :— 
Their certain persuasion that God was the guardian of their 
life, and would free them from present death by his power 
if it were useful. And also their determination to die boldly 
and fearlessly, if God wished such a sacrifice to be offered. 
What Daniel relates of these three men belongs to us all. 
Hence we may gather this general instruction. When our 
danger for the truth’s sake is imminent, we should learn to 
place our life in God’s hand, and then bravely and fearlessly 
devote ourselves to death. As to the first point, experience 
teaches us how very many turn aside from God and the pro- 
fession of faith, since they do not feel confidence in God’s 
power to liberate them. It may be said with truth of us all 
—God takes care of us, since our life is placed in his hand 
and will; but scarcely one in a hundred holds this deeply 
and surely fixed in his heart, since every one takes his own 
way of preserving his life, as if there were no virtue in God. 
Hence he has made some proficiency in God’s word who has 
learnt to place his life in God’s care, and to consider it safe | 
under his protection. For if he has made progress thus far, 
he may be in danger a hundred times, yet he will never 
hesitate to follow wherever he is called. This one feeling 
frees him from all fear and trembling, since God can extri- 
cate his servants from a thousand deaths, as it is said in 
the Psalm, (Ixviii. 20,) The issues of death are in his power. 
For death seems to consume all things; but God snatches 
from that whirlpool whom he pleases.. So this persuasion 
ought to inspire us with firm and unassailable constancy, 
since it is necessary for those who so repose the whole care 





224 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XV. 


of their life and safety upon God, to be thoroughly conscious 
and undoubtedly sure that God will defend a good cause, 
And this is also expressed by these words of Shadrach, Me- 
shach, and Abed-nego: Behold our God whom we worship. 
When they bring forward God’s worship, they bear testimony 
to the sureness of their support, when they undertake nothing 
rashly, but are worshippers of the true God, and labour for 
the defence of piety. For this is the difference between 
martyrs and malefactors, who are often compelled to suffer 
the penalty of their madness for attempting to overthrow all 
things. We see, indeed, the majority tossed about by their 
own intemperance. If they happen to suffer punishment, 
they are not to be reckoned among God’s martyrs; for, as 
Augustine says, the martyr is made by his cause, and not 
by his punishment. Hence the weight of these words, when 
these three men attest their worship of God, since in this 
way they boast in their power of enduring any urgent danger 
not rashly, but only as supported by the sure worship of God. 
I now come to the second point. 

If God be unwilling to deliver us from death, be it known 
to thee, O king, we will not worship thy gods. I said first 
of all, we should be constantly prepared to undergo every 
conflict, to commit our life to his charge, to submit to his 
will and hand, and to the protection of his custody. But 
the desire of this earthly and fading life ought not to retain 


its hold upon us, and to hinder us from the free and candid 


confession of the truth. For God’s glory ought to be more 
precious to us than a hundred lives. Hence we cannot be 
witnesses for God without we lay aside all desire of this 
life, and at least prefer God’s glory to it. Meanwhile, we 
must remark the impossibility of doing this, without the 
hope of a better life drawing us towards itself. For where 
there is no promise of any eternal inheritance implanted in 
our hearts, we shall never be torn away from this world. We 
are naturally desirous of existence, and that feeling cannot 
be eradicated, unless faith overcome it; as Paul says, Not 
that we wished to be unclothed, but clothed upon. (2 Cor. 
v. 4.) Paul confesses that men cannot be naturally induced 
to wish for departure from the world, unless, as we have 








CHAP. 111.16-18. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 225 
said, through the power of faith. But when we understand 
our inheritance to bein heaven, while we are strangers upon 
earth, then we put off that clinging to the life of this world 
to which we are too much devoted. 

These then are the two points which prepare the sons of 
God for martyrdom, and remove hesitation as to their offer- 
ing their life in sacrifice to God. First, if they are persuaded 
that God is the protector of their life and will certainly 
liberate them should it be expedient ; and secondly, when 
they live above the world and aspire to the hope of eternal 
life in heaven, while prepared to renounce the world. This 
magnanimity is to be remarked in their language, when they 
say, Be it known to thee, O king, that we do not worship thy 
gods nor adore the statue which thou hast set up. Here they 
obliquely accuse the king of arrogating too much to himself, 
and of wishing religion to stand or fall by his own will. Thou 
hast erected the statue, but thy authority is of no moment 
to us, since we know it to be a fictitious deity whose image 
thou wishest us to worship. The God whom we worship has 
revealed himself to us; we know him to be the maker of 
heaven and earth, to have redeemed our fathers from Egypt, 
and to intend our chastisement by driving us into exile. 
Since, therefore, we have a firm foundation for our faith, 
hence we reckon thy gods and thy sway valueless. It 
follows : 


19. Then was Nebuchadnezzar 
full of fury, and the form of his 
visage was changed against Sha- 
drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego : 
therefore he spake, and commanded 
that they should heat the furnace 
one seven times more than it was 
wont to be heated. 

20. And he commanded the most 
mighty men that were in his army 
to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and 


19. Tune Nebuchadnezer repletus 


fuit iracundia, et forma facie ejus 


mutata fuit! erga Sadrach, Mesach, 
et Abednego: loquutus est, jussit, 
vel, edixit, accendi fornacem uno 
septies, hoc est, septuplo, magis 
quam solebat accendi. 


20. Et viris prestantibus robore, 
vel, robustis virtute, qui erant in ejus 
satellitio? mandavit ut vincirent 


: ody, tzelem, is here taken in a different sense from its previous one, for 
Daniel sometimes uses it for “image,” but here for the “figure” or 
“ countenance” of the king, which was changed.—Calvin. 

t oun, hil, is here used for “attendants,” or “servants,” properly it 
means “ army,” but as the king is not at war, it doubtless means “ atten- 
dants ;” he chose, therefore, the strongest of his attendants.—Calvin. 


VOL, I. 


P 





226 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XV. 


Abed-nego, and to east them into Sadrach, Mesach, et Abednego, ut 
the burning fiery furnace. peyjicerent illos in fornacem ignis 
ardentis. 


Here, at first sight, God seems to desert his servants, 
since he does not openly succour them. The king orders 
them to be thrown into a furnace of fire: no help from 
heaven appears for them. This was a living and remark- 
ably efficacious proof of their faithfulness. But they were 
prepared, as we have seen, to endure everything. These 
bold answers were not prompted simply by their trust in 
God’s immediate help, but by a determination to die ; since 
a better life occupied their thoughts, they willingly sacrificed 
the present life. Hence they were not frightened at this 
terrible order of the king’s, but followed on their course, 
fearlessly submitting to death for the worship of God. No 
third way was opened for them, when a choice was granted 
either to submit to death, or apostatize from the true God. 
By this example we are taught to meditate on our immortal 
life in times of ease, so that if God pleases, we may not 
hesitate to expose our souls by the confession of the true 
faith. For we are so timorous when we are attacked by 
calamity, we are seized with fear and torpor, and then when 
we are not pressed by any urgency we feign for ourselves a 
false security. When we are allowed to be at ease, we ought 
to apply our minds to meditation upon a future life, so that 
this world may become cheap to us, and we may be prepared 
when necessary to pour forth our blood in testimony to the 
truth. And this narrative is not set before us simply to 
lead us to admire and celebrate, the courage of these three 
holy ones, but their constancy is proposed to us as an exam- 
ple for imitation. 

With reference to King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel here 
shews, as in a glass, the pride and haughtiness of kings when 
they find their decrees disobeyed. Surely a mind of iron 
ought to grow soft by the answer which we have just nar- 
rated, on hearing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego com- 
mitting their lives to God; but when it heard how they 
could not be drawn aside from their faithfulness by the fear 
of death, its anger was only increased. In considering this 


a ae 


. ~ 
ee 
S , 
P eee rn Ss dha 








CHAP. 111.19,20. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 227 


fury, we ought to take into account the power of Satan in 
seizing and occupying the minds of men. For there is no 
moderation in them, even if they shew some great and re- 
markable hope of virtues,—for, as we have seen, Nebuchad- 
nezzar was endued with many virtues; but as Satan harassed 
him, we discern nothing but cruelty and barbarity. Mean- 
while, let us remember how pleasing our constancy is to God, 
though it may not produce any immediate fruit before the 
world. For many indulge in pleasure through thinking they 
would be rash in devoting themselves to death, without any 
apparent utility. And on this pretext, they excuse them- 
selves from not contending more boldly for the glory of God, 
by supposing they would iose their labour, and their death 
would be fruitless. But we hear what Christ pronounces, 
namely, this sacrifice is pleasing to God, when we die for the 
testimony of the heavenly doctrine, although the generation 
before which we bear witness to God’s name is adulterous 
and perverse, nay, even hardened by our constancy. (Matt. 
y. 11, and x. 82, and Mark viii. 38.) 

And such an example is here set before us in these three 
holy men; because, although Nebuchadnezzar was more 
inflamed by the freedom of their confession, yet that 
liberty pleased God, and they did not repent of it, though 
they did not discern the fruit of their constancy which they 
wished. The Prophet also expresses this circumstance to 
demonstrate the king’s fury, since he ordered the furnace to 
be heated seven times hotter than before ; and then, he chose 
From his own servants the strongest of all to bind these holy 
men, and cast them into the furnace of fire. 

But from the result it is very evident, that this did not 
occur without God’s secret impulse ; for the devil will some- 
times throw discredit on a miracle, unless all doubt is re- 
moved. Since therefore the king ordered the furnace to be 
heated sevenfold more than before, next when he chose the 
strongest attendants, and commanded them to follow him, 
God thus removed all doubts, by liberating his servants, 
because light emerges more clearly from the darkness, when 
Satan endeavours to shut it out. Thus God is accustomed 
to frustrate the impious; and the more impious they are in 





228 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XV, 
opposing his glory, the more he makes his honour and doe- 
trine conspicuous. In like manner, Daniel here paints, as in 
a picture, how King Nebuchadnezzar passed nothing by, 
when he wished to strike terror into the minds of all the 
Jews by this cruel punishment. And yet he obtained nothing 


else by his plans than a clearer illustration of God’s power 


and grace towards his servants. 


21. Then these men were bound 
in their coats, their hosen, and their 
hats, and their other garments, and 
were cast into the midst of the burn- 
ing fiery furnace. 

22. Therefore because the king’s 
commandment was urgent, and the 
furnace exceeding hot, the flame of 
the fire slew those men that took 
up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed- 
nego. 


23. And these three men, Sha- 
drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell 
down bound into the midst of the 


It now follows :— 


21. Tune viri illi vineti sunt, vel, 
ligati, in suis chlamydibus,' et cum 
tiaris suis:? in vestitu suo: et pro- 
jecti sunt in fornacem ignis arden- 
tis. 

22. Propterea quod urgebat, vel, 
festinabat, ad verbum, preeceptum 
regis, et fornacem vehementer jus- 
serat accendi, viros illos qui extu- 
lerant Sadrach, Mesach, et Abed- 
nego occidit favilla, alii vertunt 
flammamn, ignis. 

23. Et viri illi tres Sadrach, Me- 
sach, et Abednego ceciderant in me- 
dium fornacis ignis,? ardentis vineti. 


burning fiery furnace. 


Here Daniel relates the miracle by which God liberated his 
servants. It has two parts: first, these three holy men walked 
untouched in the midst of the flame ; and the fires consumed 
those attendants who cast them into the furnace. The Pro- 
phet diligently enumerates whatever tends to prove the 
power of God. He says, since the king’s command was urgent, 
that is, since the king ordered in such anger the furnace to 
be heated, the flames devour the men who executed his 
orders. For in Job, (xviii. 5,) D°3%, shebib, means “ spark,” 
or the extremity of a flame. The sense of the Prophet is by 
no means obscure, since the extremity of the flame consumed 
those strong attendants by playing round them, while Sha- 
drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego walked through the fuel in 


1 Some translate sandals, or, shoes, others hose; but the majority take 
the second noun for hose; but we need not trouble ourselves too much 
about the words, if we only understand the thing itself. —Calvin. 

2 We know that the Orientals then wore turbans as they do now, for 
they wrap up the head; and though we do not see many of them, yet we 
know the Turkish dress; then the general name is added.—Calvin. See 
also the note on this passage in Wintle’s translation, which is full of good 
explanatory notes. 

8 That is, within the furnace of fire. —Calvin. 











CHAP. 111. 21-23. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 229 


the fire and flame. They were not in the extremity of the 
flame; for it is as if the Prophet had said,—the king’s 
slaves were consumed by the very smoke, and the fire was 
without the slightest effect on the servants of God. Hence 
he says, these three fell down in the furnace of fire. By say- 
ing they fell, it means they could not take care of themselves 
or attempt to escape ; for he adds, they were bound. This 
might at first naturally suffocate them, till they were imme- 
diately consumed ; but they remained untouched, and then 
walked about the furnace loose. We hereby see how conspi- 
cuous was God’s power, and how no falsehood of Satan’s 
could obscure it. And next, when the very points of the 

flame, or the fiery sparks, devour the servants, here again 
_ the deed is proved to be of God. Meanwhile, the result of 
the history is the preservation of these three holy men, so 
surprisingly beyond their expectation. 

This example is set before us, to show us how nothing can 
be safer than to make God the guardian and protector of 
our life. For we ought not to expect to be preserved from 
every danger because we see those holy men delivered ; for 
we ought to hope for liberation from death, if it be useful, 
and yet we ought not to hesitate to meet it without fear, 
if God so please it. But we should gather from our pre- 
sent narrative the sufficiency of God’s protection, if he wishes 
to prolong our lives, since we know our life to be precious to 
him ; and it is entirely in his power, either to snatch us from 
danger, or to withdraw us to a better existence, according to 
his pleasure. We have an example of this in the case of 
Peter ; for he was on one day led forth from prison, and the 
next day put to death. Even then God shewed his care of 
his servant's life, though Peter at length suffered death. 
How so? Because he had finished his course. Hence, as 
often as God pleases, he will exert his power to pre- 
serve us; if he leads us onwards to death, we must be 
assured it is best for us to die, and injurious to us to 
enjoy life any longer. This is the substance of the instruc- 
tion which we may receive from this narrative. It now 
follows :— 


24. Then Nebuchadnezzar the 24. Tune Nebuchadnezer rex con- 


230 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


king was astonied, and rose up in 
haste, and spake, and said unto his 
counsellors, Did not we cast three 
men bound into the midst of the fire ? 
They answered and said unto the 
king, True, O king. 

25. He answered and said, Lo, I 
see four men loose, walking in the 
midst of the fire, and they have no 





LECT. XV. 


tremuit,’ et surrexit in festinatione, 
celeriter : loquutus est, et dixit con- 
siliariis suis :? An non viros tres pro- 
jecimus in fornacem ligatos ? vinetos ? 
Responderunt, et dixerunt regi, 
Vere, rex. 

25. Respondit, et dixit, Atqui 
ego video viros quatuor solutos, am- 
bulantes in igne, et nulla noxa in 


hurt ; and the form of the fourth is ipsis est: et facies quarti similis est 
like the Son of God. filio Dei. : 


Here Daniel relates how God’s power was manifest to the 
profane—to both the king and his courtiers, who had con- 
spired for the death of these holy men. He says, then, the 
king trembled at that miracle ; since God often compels the 
impious to acknowledge his power, and when they stupify 
themselves, and harden all their senses, they are compelled 
to feel God’s power whether they will or not. 
how this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. He trembled, 
says he, and rose up quickly, and said to his companions, 
Did we not cast three men bound into the fire? When they 
say, /¢ 1s so, Nebuchadnezzar was doubtless impelled by a 
Divine impulse, and a secret instinct, to inquire of his com- 
panions to extract this confession from them. For Nebu- 
chadnezzar might easily approach the furnace, but God wished 
to extract this confession from his enemies, that both they 
and the king might allow the rescue of Shadrach, Meshach, 
and Abed-nego, to have proceeded from no earthly medium, 
but from the admirable and extraordinary power of God. 
We may here remark, how the impious are witnesses to God’s 
power, not willingly, but because God placed this question 
in the king’s mouth, and also in his not permitting them to 
escape or turn aside from the confession of the truth, But 
Nebuchadnezzar says, four men walked in the fire, and the 
face of the fourth is like the son of a god. No doubt God 
here sent one of his angels, to support by his presence the 
minds of his saints, lest they should faint. It was indeed a 


formidable spectacle to see the furnace so hot, and to be cast 


1 Or, was terrified.—Calvin. 

? Some translate, to his companions; and the word may be derived from 
either consiliwm or conswetudo: hence it might mean companions who 
were around the king; but soon afterwards it means counsellors, and there 
is no need of variety. —Culvin. 


Daniel shews 





CHAP. 111. 24,25. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 231 


into it. By this consolation God wished to allay their 
anxiety, and to soften their grief, by adding an angel as their 
companion. We know how many angels have been sent to 
one man, as we read of Elisha. (2 Kings vi. 15.) And there 
is this general rule—He has given his angelscharge over thee, 
to guard thee in all thy ways ; and also, The camps of angels 
are about those who fear God. (Ps. xci. 11, and xxxiv. 7.) 
This, indeed, is especially fulfilled in Christ ; but it is ex- 
tended to the whole body, and to each member of the Church, 
for God has his own hosts at hand to serve him. But we 
read again how an angel was often sent to a whole nation. 
God indeed does not need his angels, while he uses their as- 
sistance in condescension to our infirmities. And when we 
do not regard his power as highly as we ought, he interposes 
his angels to remove our doubts, as we have formerly said. 
A single angel was sent to these three men ; Nebuchadnezzar 
calls him a son of God; not because he thought him to be 
Christ, but according to the common opinion among all 
people, that angels are sons of God, since a certain divinity 
is resplendent in them ; and hence they call angels generally 
sons of God. According to this usual custom, Nebuchad- 
nezzar says, the fourth man ws like a son of @ god. For he 
could not recognise the only-begotten Son of God, since, as 
we have already seen, he was blinded by so many depraved 
errors. And if any one should say it was enthusiasm, this 
would be forced and frigid. This simplicity, then, will be 
sufficient for us, since Nebuchadnezzar spoke in the usual 
manner, as one of the angels was sent to those three men— 
since, as I have said, it was then customary to call angels 
sons of God. Scripture thus speaks, (Ps. lxxxix. 6, and else- 
where,) but God never suffered truth to become so buried in 
the world as not to leave some seed of sound doctrine, at 
least as a testimony to the profane, and to render them more 
inexcusable—as we shall treat more at length in the next 
lecture." 
1 See DisseRTATION xi. at the end of this volume. 


232 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XVI. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since our life is only for a moment, nay, is only 
vanityand smoke, that we may learn to cast all our care upon thee, 
and so to depend upon thee, as not to doubt thee as our deliverer 
from all urgent perils, whenever it shall be to our advantage. 


Grant us also to learn to neglect and despise our lives, espe= 


cially for the testimony of thy glory; and may we be prepared 
to depart as soon as thou callest us from this world. May the 
hope of eternal life be so fixed in our hearts, that we may will- 
ingly leave this world and aspire with all our mind towards that 
blessed eternity which thou hast testified to be laid up for us in 
heaven, through the gospel, and which thine only-begotten Son 
has procured for us through his blood.—Amen. 


Becture Sixteenth. 


26. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near 26. Tune accessit Nebuchad- 
to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, nezer ad ostium fornacis ignis 
and spake, and said, Shadrach, Me- ardentis: loquutus est et dixit, 
shach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of Sadrach, Mesach, et Abednego 
the most high God, come forth, and come _ servi Dei excelsi, egredimini, et 
hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and venite. Tune egressi sunt Sa- 
Abed-nego came forth of the midst of the drach, Mesach, et Abednego 
fire. e medio ignis. 


Here a sudden change is described in the mood of this 
cruel and proud king. We have already seen how confi- 


dently he exacted worship from the servants of God, and 


when he saw them disobedient to his command, how mightily 
he raged against them. Now Daniel shews in how short a 
time this pride was subdued and this cruelty appeased ; but 
we must remark that the king was not so changed as en- 
tirely to put off his disposition and manners. For when he 
was touched with this present miracle, he gave God the 
glory, but only for a moment; and still he did not return 
to wisdom. We cannot take too diligent notice of examples 
of this kind, as many estimate the characters of others from 
a single action. But the worst despisers of God can submit 
to him for a short time, not merely by feigning to do so be- 
fore men, but in real seriousness, since God compels them 
by his power, but meanwhile they retain their pride and 


q “e at A. Oe 














CHAP. III. 26. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 233 


ferocity within their breasts. Of this kind, then, was the 
conversion of King Nebuchadnezzar. For when astonished 
by the miracle, he could no longer resist the Almighty, he 
was still inconsistent, as we shall afterwards see. We may 
also notice how the impious, who are unregenerate by God’s 
Spirit, are often impelled to worship God ; but this is only 
temporary, and this equable tenor never remains through 
their whole life. But when God renews his own, he under- 
takes to govern them even to the end; he animates them 
to perseverance, and confirms them by his Spirit. 

We must here remark how God’s glory is illustrated by 
this temporary and vanishing conversion of the reprobate ; 
because, whether they will or not, yet they yield to God 
for a time, and thus the greatness of his power is acknow- 
ledged. God, therefore, turns an event which does not profit 
the reprobate to his own glory, and at the same time 
punishes them more severely. For Nebuchadnezzar’s con- 
duct was less excusable after his once acknowledging the 
God of Israel to be the supreme and only God, and then re- 
lapsing into his former superstitions. He says, therefore,— 
He approached the door of the furnace, and spoke thus,— 
Shadrach, Meshach, and A bed-nego, servants of the most high 
God, come forth and come hither. A short time before, he 
wished his own statue to be worshipped, and his own name 
to be esteemed the only one in heaven and earth, since this 
was pleasing to him. We then saw how he claimed the 
right of subjecting the religion and worship of God to his 
own will and lust; but now, as if he were a new man, he 
calls Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, servants of the 
most high God! What place, then, was left to him and to 
all the Chaldeans? How could they now worship those fic- 
titious gods and idols which they had fabricated? But 
God extracted these words from the proud and cruel king, 
as when criminals are compelled, by tortures, to say what 
they would otherwise refuse. Thus Nebuchadnezzar con- 
fessed God to be the most high God of Israel, as if he had 
been tortured, but not of his own accord, or in a composed 
state of mind. He does not pretend this before men, as I 
have said ; but his mind was neither pure nor perfect, since 


23-4 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XVI. 
it was in a ferment with this temporary commotion. And 
this must also be added—the instinct was rather violent 
than voluntary. 

Daniel afterwards relates—His companions came forth 


from the midst of the fire. By these words he again confirms 


the miracle ; for God could extinguish the fire of the furnace, . 


but he wished it to burn in the sight of all, to render the 
power of this deliverance the more conspicuous. Meanwhile 
we must notice the three men walking in the furnace, until 
the king commanded them to come forth, because God had 
issued no command. They saw themselves perfectly safe and 
sound in the midst of the furnace; they were content with 
God’s present benefit, but still they had no free departure, 
until fetched by the king’s voice. As when Noah, in the 
ark, saw safety prepared for him in that tomb, yet he did 
not try anything until commanded to come forth. (Gen. 
viii. 16.) So also Daniel asserts that his companions did 
not come forth from the furnace till the king commanded 
them. Then at length they understood how what they had 
heard from the king was pleasing to God; not because he 
was a Prophet or teacher, but because they were cast into 
the furnace by his command. So also when he recalls them, 
they know the end of their cross to be arrived, and thus they 
pass from death unto life. It follows— yee 





27. And the princes, “governors, 
and captains, and the king’s coun- 
sellors, being gathered together, saw 
these men, upon whose bodies the 
fire had no power, nor was an hair 
of their head singed, neither were 
their coats changed, nor the smell of 
fire had passed on them. 


27. Et congregati sunt satrapee, 
duces, preefecti, et consiliarii regis! 
ad conspiciendos viros illos, quod 
non dominatus esset ignis corporibus 
eorum, et pilus capitis eorum non ad- 
ustus esset, et vestibus eorum non 
esset mutatus, et odor ignis non per- 
vasisset, vel, non penetrasset, ad eos.? 


Daniel relates how the satraps were gathered together 


with the leaders, prefects, and councillors of the king. ‘The 
gathering was simply a collection of numbers, and if they 
deliberated about anything of importance, they all agreed. 
And this confirms the miracle, since if they had been stupi- 


1 Some translate the last “ prefects,” but badly: it properly signifies 
either counsellors or familiar friends, as appears from many passages.— 


Calvin. 


2 Or, “ to them,” for the relative may apply either to their persons or 
their clothing, and it is of little consequence to which. —Calvin. 





CHAP. 111. 27. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 235 
fied, how could the great power of God be proposed to the 
eyes of the blind? Although they were so astonished, they 
were not altogether foolish. And Daniel implies this by 
saying, they were assembled together. After they had discus- 
sed the matter, he says, they came to behold that specimen 
of the incredible power of God. Then he enumerates many 
reasons, which clearly shew these three men not to have been 
preserved by any other means than God’s singular good will. 
He says, The fire had no power over their bodies: then, a 
hair of their head was not burnt: thirdly, their garments 
were unchanged : lastly, the smell of fire had not penetrated 
to themselves or their garments. He expresses more by the 
word smell than if he had simply said,—the fire had not 
penetrated. For fire must naturally consume and burn up 
whatever is submitted to it; but when not even the smell of 
fire has passed over any substance, the miracle is more con- 
spicuous. Now, we understand the Prophet’s intention. 
On the whole, he shews how the benefit of freedom was no 
small one, since Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego came safe 
out of the furnace. Besides, these satraps, prefects, and 
governors, were witnesses of the power of God. ‘Their tes- 
timony would be the more valuable, as all the Jews were 
spectators of this grace of God, which even they scarcely be- 
lieved. But since these men were clearly and professedly 
enemies to true piety, they would willingly have concealed 
the miracle, had it been in their power. But God draws 
them against their wills, and compels them to be eye-wit- 
nesses, and they are thus obliged to confess what cannot be 
in the slightest degree doubtful. It follows— 


28. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, 
and said, Blessed be the God of Sha- 
drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who 
hath sent his angel, and delivered 
his servants that trusted in him, and 
have changed the king’s word, and 
yielded their bodies, that they might 
not serve nor worship any god ex- 
cept their own God. 


28. Loquutus est Nebuchadnezer, 
et dixit, Benedictus Deus ipsorum, 
nempe Sadrach, Mesach, et Abed- 
nego, qui misit angelum suum, et 
eripuit, servavit, servos suos, qui 
confisi sunt in ipso, et verbum regis 
mutarunt,! et tradiderunt corpora 
sua, ne colerent, vel adorarent om- 
nem deum,? preter Deum suum. 


1 Transgressed, that is, deprived the king’s edict of its confidence and 


authority.— Calvin. 


2 That is, adore any other god.—Calvin. 





236 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEI. LECT, XVI. 


This, indeed, is no common confession, but the event 
proved how suddenly King Nebuchadnezzar was acted on by 
impulse, without having the living root of the fear of God in 
his heart. And I repeat this again, to shew that repentance 
does not consist in one or two works, but in perseverance, as 
Paul says,—“ If ye live in the Spirit, walk also in the Spirit.” 
(Gal. v. 25.) Here he requires constancy in the faithful, by 
which they may shew themselves to be truly born again of 
God’s Spirit. Nebuchadnezzar celebrated the God of Israel 
as if inspired by an enthusiasm, but at the same time he 
mingled his idols with the true God, so that there was no 
sincerity in him. So when the impious feel God’s power, 
they do not dare to proceed with obstinacy against him, but 
wish to appease him by a false repentance, without putting 
off their natural disposition. Thus we readily conclude 
Nebuchadnezzar to be always the same, although God ex- 
tracted from him this confession,—Blessed, says he, be the 
God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego! Why does he 
not rather speak of him as his own God? This may be ex- 
cused, had he really devoted himself to the God of Israel, and 
abjured his former superstitions. As he does not act thus, 
his confession is worthless; not because lhe wished to obtain 
men’s favour or good opinion by what he said, but he de- 
ceived himself after the manner of hypocrites. He pro- 
nounces the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed- -nego to 


be blessed: if he really felt this, he must at the same time 


curse his idols, for the glory of the one true God cannot be 
extolled without all idols being reduced to nothing. For 
how can God’s praise exist without his being solely conspi- 
cuous? If any other deity is opposed to him, his majesty is 
already buried in complete obscurity. Hence we may collect 
that Nebuchadnezzar was not touched with true repentance 
when he blessed the God of Israel. He adds, Who sent his 
angel, and delivered his servants. Here Daniel shews more 
clearly the absence of conversion in Nebuchadnezzar, and 
his failure to embrace the God of Israel, and worship him 
with sound and complete surrender of his affections. Why 
so? Because piety is always founded upon the knowledge of 
the true God, and this requires instruction. Nebuchadnezzar 


4 


{ 





CHAP. III. 238. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 237 


knew the God of Israel to be majestic from the display of 
his power, for he had such a spectacle presented to him as 
he could not despise, if he wished. Here he confesses that 
Israel’s God was mighty, since he was taught it by a miracle; 
but this, as I have reminded you, is not sufficient for solid 
piety, unless instruction is added, and occupies the first 
place. I allow, indeed, that miracles prepare men to believe, 
but if miracles only occurred without the knowledge of God 
being added from his Word, faith will vanish away—as the 
example sufficiently remarkable here sets before us. We term 
the faith of Nebuchadnezzar to be but momentary, because, 
while his senses were fixed upon the miracle, he was con- 
tent with the spectacle without inquiring into the character 
of the God of Israel, and the bearing of his law. He was 
not anxious about a Mediator; hence he neglected the chief 
point of piety, and rashly seized upon one part of it only. 
We clearly observe this in many profane men, for God often 
humbles them, to induce them suppliantly to fly to him for 
safety; but meanwhile they remain perplexed by their own 
senses ; they do not deny their own superstitions, nor regard 
the true worship of God. To prove our obedience to God, 
we must. uphold this principle—nothing pleases him which 
does not spring from faith. (Rom. xiv. 23.) But faith can- 
not be acquired by any miracle, or any perception of the 
Divine power; it requires instruction also. The miracles 
avail only to the preparation for piety or for its confirmation ; 
they cannot by themselves bring men to worship the true 
God. This is surprising indeed, when a profane king says 
the angel was sent by God. 

It is sufficiently evident from heathen writings that some- 
thing was always known about angels. This was, as it were, 
a kind of anticipation and previous persuasion, since all 
people are persuaded that angels exist, so that they had 
some idea of angels, although but a partial one. For, when 
a short time ago Daniel said the fourth appearance in the 
furnace was called by the king of Babylon “a son of a god,” 
then, as I have explained it, Nebuchadnezzar professed some 
belief in angels. He now says more expressly, God sent his 
angel. As angels afford supplies to the elect and the faith- 





238 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XVI. 


ful, I treat the subject here but shortly, since I am not in 
the habit of dwelling upon ordinary passages. It is enough 
for the present passage to shew how the impious, who have 
learnt nothing from either God himself or from piety at large, 
were yet imbued with these principles, since God is accus- 
tomed to use the assistance of angels to preserve his people. 
For this reason Nebuchadnezzar now says, the angel was sent 
by God to delwer his servants. Henext adds, who trusted in 
him ; and this is worthy of notice, since it is added as a rea- 
son why these three men were so wonderfully preserved, 
through reposing all their hopes on God. Although Nebu- 
chadnezzar was very like a log ora stone with relation to the 
doctrine of faith, yet God wished by means of this stone and 
log to instruct us, to inspire us with shame, and to reprove 
us of incredulity, since we are unable to conform our lives to 
his will, and to approach all dangers boldly, whenever it 
becomes necessary. For if we are thoroughly persuaded that 
God is the guardian of our life, surely no threats, nor terrors, 
nor death itself, should hinder us from persevering in our 
duty. But distrust is the cause of slothfulness, and when- 
ever we deflect from a straightforward course, we deprive 
God of his honour, by becoming backsliders, while some want 
of faith betrays itself and is palpably apparent. Hence let us 
learn, if we wish our life to be protected by God’s hand, to 
commit ourselves entirely to him, since he will never disap- 
point us when we confide in him. We saw how doubtful 
about the event Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were; 
but their doubt did not diminish their hope and confidence. 
They were placed in this alternative—either God will take 
us from the furnace, or, if we must die, he will preserve us 
for some better state, and gather us into his kingdom. 
Although they dared not persuade themselves that he would 
notice them, yet they reposed their lives in the hand and 
care of God. Hence they are deservedly complimented by 
Nebuchadnezzar, when he said,—They trusted in their God, 
and afterwards, they changed the king’s edict, that is, reduced 
it to nothing, and abrogated it, because they were endued with 
greater power. For whoever rests in God, easily despises 
all mankind, and whatever is lofty and magnificent in the 





CHAP. 111. 28. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 239 


world. And this context is worthy of observation, since 
faith ought to be put as a foundation, and then fortitude and 
constancy must be added, with which Shadrach, Meshach, 
and Abed-nego were endowed ; because any one who reposes 
upon God can never be moved aside from the discharge of 
his duty; and however numerous the impediments which 
may occur, he will be borne aloft on the wings of his confi- 
dence. He who knows God to be on his side, will be supe- 
rior to the whole world, and will neither wonder at the sceptre 
and diadems of kings, nor dread their power, but rather sur- 
pass all the majesty of the earth which may oppose him, and 
never to turn aside from this course. 

He afterwards adds, they delivered up their bodies instead 
of worshipping or adoring any god except their own God. 
That very thing which the king is compelled to praise in 
these three men, at this day many who boast themselves to 
be Christians wish to escape. For they fancy their faith to 
be buried in their hearts, and bring forth no fruit of their 
profession. There is no doubt God wished these things to 
be related by his Prophet, to shew the detestable cunning of 
those who wish to defraud God of his lawful honour, and at 
the same time shelter themselves from his gaze, lest he should 
notice their insult, Such as these are unworthy of being 
convinced by the word of God, but Nebuchadnezzar is here 
appointed their master, censor, and judge. And we must 
diligently remark this,—Nebuchadnezzar praises these three, 
because they refused to worship any other god except their 
-own. Why then did he mingle together a great multitude 
of deities? For he did not depart from his own errors and 
give himself up entirely to the God of Israel, and embrace 
his worship in its purity. Why then does he praise in others 
what he does not imitate? But this is far too common ; for 
we see virtue praised and yet frozen to death, as in this in- 
stance, for many are willing to offer him lip-service. (Juve- 
nal, Sat. i.) Although Nebuchadnezzar seemed here to speak 
seriously, yet he did not consider himself; but he took away 
all pretext for excuse, since he could not afterwards pretend 
ignorance and error, after asserting with his own mouth that 
no other god ought to be worshipped. Hence he may cause 





240 


LECT. XVI. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


those who now wish to be called Christians to be ashamed, 
unless they depart far away from all superstitions, and con- 
secrate themselves entirely to God, and retain his worship in 
its sincerity. We must remember then how King Nebu- 
chadnezzar does not simply praise the constancy of these 
three men, because he does not acknowledge any god, for he 
does reckon the God of Israel to be a true deity. Hence it 
follows, that all others were fictitious and utterly vain. But 
he spoke to no purpose, because God did not thereby touch 


his heart, as he usually works in his elect when he regene-. 


rates them. It follows,— 


29. Therefore I make a decree, 29. Et a me positum est, hoe est, 


That every people, nation, and lan- 
guage, which speak anything amiss 
against the God of Shadrach, Me- 
shach, and Abed-nego, shall be cut 
in pieces, and their houses shall be 
made a dunghill; because there is 
no other God that can deliver after 
this sort. 


ponitur, edictum,! ut omnis populus, 
natio,? et lingua quee protulerit ali- 
quid transversum,? contra Deum 
ipsorum, nempe Sadrach, Mesach, 
et Abednego, in frusta fiet, et domus 
ejus iv latrinam, vel, in sterquilini- 
um, redigetur: quia non est Deus 
alius qui possit servare hoe modo. 


Here Nebuchadnezzar is urged further forward—for we 
must use this phrase—since he does not take up the worship 
of one God from his heart, and bid his errors finally farewell. 
Hence it is as if God was thrusting him violently forward, 
while he promulgates this edict. The edict is by itself pious 
and praiseworthy ; but, as we have already said, Nebuchad- 


nezzar is borne along by a blind and turbulent impulse, 


because piety had no root in his heart. Though he is always 
intent on this miracle, his faith is only momentary, and his 
fear of God but partial. Why then is Nebuchadnezzar now 
seen as the patron of God’s glory ? Because he was frightened 
by the miracle, and thus being acted on by impulse alone, 
he could not be soundly restrained by the fear of God alone. 
And finally, this desire which he expresses is nothing but an 
evanescent movement. It is useful to remark this, since we 
see many borne along by impetuous zeal and rage to vindi- 
cate God’s glory ; but they lack tact and judgment, so that 

1 Or, decree,—we have already explained this word.—Calvin. 

* Some translate, family.—Calvin. 

8 nby, sheleh, signifies to err; hence the noun is derived, which many 


translate error, and others rashness; but it means a perverse speech— 
whoever, therefore, utters a perverse speech.—Calvin. 


ay ey ee 





CHAP. I1T, 29. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 241 


they deserve no praise. And many wander still further—as 
we see in the Papacy—when many edicts of kings and princes 
fly about ; and if any one should ask them why they are so 
eager as not to spare even human blood, they put forth in- 
deed a zeal for God, but it is mere madness without a-spark 
of true knowledge. We must hold, therefore, that no law 
ean be passed nor any edict promulgated concerning religion 
and the worship of God, unless a real knowledge of God 
shines forth. Nebuchadnezzar indeed had a reason for this 
edict, but, as I have already said, there was a special motive 
for his conduct. Some, indeed, now wish to be thought 
Christian princes, and yet are only inflamed by a hypocritical 
zeal, and so they pour forth innocent blood like cruel beasts. 
And why so? Because they make no distinction between 
the true God and idols. But I shall discuss this point at 
greater length to-morrow, and so pass over casually what I 
shall treat at length, when the fit opportunity arrives. 
Every people, therefore, and nation, and language, which 
shall have offered a perverse speech against their God. Nebu- 
chadnezzar again extolled the God of Israel, but how was he 
taught the majesty of God? By this one proof of his power, for 
he neglected the chief point—the ascertaining from the law 
and the prophets the nature of God and the power of his will. 
Thus we see, on one side, how God’s glory is asserted here, 
and yet the principal point in his worship, and in true piety, 
is neglected and omitted. No light punishment is added— 
he must be cut in pieces, neat, his house must be turned into a 
dunghill, since he has spoken reproachfully of the God of Israel. 
Hence we gather how this severity is not to be utterly con- 
demned, when God’s worship is defended by severe punish- 
ments ; yet a correct sentence ought to be passed in each 
ease. But I put this off also till to-morrow. It is now 
added, because there ts no other God who can deliver after 
this manner; and this confirms what I have formerly 
touched upon, namely, King Nebuchadnezzar does not regard 
the law in his edict, nor yet the other requisites of piety ; 
but he is only impelled and moved by the miracle, so as not 
to bear or desire anything to be said opprobriously against 
the God of Israel. Hence the edict is deserving of blame in 
VOL. I. Q 


242 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XVI. 


this point, since he does not inquire what God’s nature is, 
with the view of obtaining a sufficient reason for issuing it. 
It is added at length,— 


30. Then the king promoted Sha- 30. Tune rex prosperare fecit, 


drach, Meshach, and Abed-nego,in Sadrach, Mesach, et Abednego, in . 


the province of Babylon. provincia Babylonis. 


This seems to be of slight consequence ; but yet it was 
not added in vain. We are to understand that the miracle 
was confirmed throughout the whole province and region, 
because all the Chaldeans knew those three men were cast 
into the furnace, and then afterwards shared in the im- 
perial sway and were restored to their former honours. In 
consequence of this event, God’s power could not be unknown, 
It was just as if God had sent forth three heralds through 
the whole region, who everywhere proclaimed how they were 
wonderfully delivered from death by God’s special interposi- 
tion. Whence, also, it would be understood how worthless 
were all the deities then worshipped in Chaldea, and how 
that great deity whose statue Nebuchadnezzar had set up 
had been despised, and how the true God proved his consis- 
tency in snatching his servants from death. 


PRAYER._ 


Grant, Almighty God, since thou hast instructed us by the doctrine 
of thy law and Gospel, and dost daily deign to make known 
thy will to us with familiarity, that we may remain fixed in the 
true obedience of this teaching, in which thy perfect justice is 
manifested ; and may we never be moved away from thy worship. 
May we be prepared, whatever happens, rather to undergo a 
hundred deaths than to turn aside from the profession of true 
piety, in which we know our safety to be laid up. And may we 
so glorify thy name as to be partakers of that glory which has 
been acquired for us through the blood of thine only-begotten 
Son.—Amen. 


1 Verbally, for nby, tzelech, signifies “to prosper ;” hence the word is 
deduced, which signifies “to rest in a state of prosperity;” that is, he 
caused those three men to become prosperous.—Calvin. 





ea 








CHAP. IV. 1-3. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, 


243 


Lecture Seventeenth. 


CHAPTER FOURTH. 


1. Nebuchadnezzar the king, 
unto all people, nations, and lan- 
guages, that dwell in all the earth ; 
Peace be multiplied unto you. 

2. I thought it good to shew the 
signs and wonders that the high God 
hath wrought toward me. 

3. How great are his signs! and 
how mighty are his wonders! his 
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, 
and his dominion 7s from generation 


1. Nebuchadnezer rex omnibus 
populis, nationibus, et linguis; que 
habitant in tota terra, pax vobiscum 
multiplicetur. , 

2. Signa et mirabilia que fecit 
mecum Deus excelsus pulchrum 
coram me enatrare. 

3. Signa ejus quam magna sunt! 
et mirabilia ejus quam fortia! reg- 
num ejus regnum seculare,! et domi- 
natio ejus cum etate, et state. 


to generation. 


Some join these verses to the end of the third chapter, 
but there is no reason for this; and it will clearly appear 
from the context that the edict is here set forth in the king’s 
name, and other events are inserted. Daniel, therefore, here 
speaks in the person of the king; he afterwards narrates 
what happened to the king, and then returns to his own 
person. Those who separate these three verses from the 
context of the fourth chapter, do not seem to have suffi- 
ciently considered the intention and words of the Prophet. 
This passage may seem harsh and rough, when Daniel in- 
troduces the king of Babylon as speaking—then speaks in 
his own name—and afterwards returns to the person of the 
king. But since this variety does not render the sense 
either doubtful or obscure, there is no reason why it should 
trouble us. We now see how all the sentences which we 
shall explain in their places are mutually united. 

The contents of this chapter are as follow: Nebuchad- 
nezzar was sufficiently instructed in the worship of the 
God of Israel as one God, and was compelled at the time 
to confess this; yet he did not depart from his own super- 
stitions ; his conceptions of the true God were but moment- 
ary, and hence he suffered the punishment due to such 
great ingratitude. But God intended him to become more 
and more blinded, as he is accustomed to treat the reprobate 


1 That is, perpetual.—Calvin. 





244 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XVII. 


and even his elect at times. When men add sin to sin, God 
loosens his reins and allows them to destroy themselves. 
Afterwards he either extends his hand towards them, or 
withdraws them by his hidden virtue, or reduces them to 
order by his rod, and completely humbles them. He treated 
the king of Babylon in this way. We shall afterwards dis- 
cuss the dream; but we must here briefly notice the king’s 
admonition, that he might feel himself without excuse when 
he was so utterly broken down. God indeed might justly 
punish him as soon as he saw he was not truly converted ; 
but before he inflicted the final chastisement—as we shall 
see in its place—he wished to admonish him, if there were 
any hope of his repentance. Although he seemed to receive 
with the greatest modesty what God had manifested by his 
dream through Daniel’s interpretation of it, yet he professed 
with his mouth what he did not really possess. And he 
shews this sufficiently, because, when he ought to be afraid 
and cautious, he does not lay aside his pride, but glories in 
himself as a king of kings, and in Babylon as the queen of 
the whole world! Since, then, he spoke so confidently after 
being admonished by the Prophet, we perceive how little he 
had profited by his dream. But God wished in this way to 
render him more inexcusable, and although he did not bring 
forth fruit immediately, yet a long time afterwards, when 
God touched his mind, he very properly recognised this 


punishment to have been divinely inflicted. Hence this © 


dream was a kind of entrance and preparation for repent- 
ance, and as seed seems to lie putrid in the earth before it 
brings forth its fruit, and God sometimes works by gentle 
processes, and provides for the teaching, which seemed for a 
long time useless, becoming both efficacious and fruitful. 

I now come to the words themselves ; the preface to the 
edict is, Nebuchadnezzar the king to all peoples, nations, and 
languages, which dwell in the whole earth, namely, under his 
sway. He does not mean this to be extended to Scythia, or 
Gaul, or other distant regions ; but since his empire extended 
far and wide, he spoke boastingly. Thus we see the Romans, 
whose sway did not reach near so far, called Rome itself the 
seat of the empire of the whole world! Here Nebuchad- 


_ 


ee 








CHAP. Iv. 1-3. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. Q45 


nezzar now predicts the magnificence and mightiness of his 
own monarchy. Hence he sends his edict to all peoples, and 
nations, and languages, which dwell on the earth. He after- 
wards adds, 1¢ seemed to me good to relate the signs and won- 
ders which the mighty God hath wrought with me. No doubt 
he feels himself to have paid the penalty of his ingratitude, 
since he had so punctiliously ascribed the glory to one true 
God, and yet had relapsed into his own superstitions, and had — 
never really said farewell to them. We see how often King 
Nebuchadnezzar was chastised before he profited by the rod 
of the Almighty. Hence we need not be suprised if God 
often strikes us with his hand, since the result of experience 
proves us to be dull, and, to speak truly, utterly slothful. 
When God, therefore, wishes to lead us to repentance, he is 
compelled to repeat his blows continually, either because 
we are not moved when he chastises us with his hand, or we 
seem roused for the time, and then we return again to our 
former torpor. He is therefore compelled to redouble his 
blows. And we perceive this in the narrative before us, as 
in a glass. But the singular benefit of God was this, Ne- 
buchadnezzar, after God had often chastised him, yielded at 
length. It is unknown whether or not this confession pro- 
ceeded from true and genuine repentance: I must leave it 
in doubt. Yet without the slightest doubt Daniel recited 
this edict, to shew the king so subdued at length, as to con- 
fess the God of Israel to be the only God, and to bear wit- 
ness to this among all people under his sway. 

Meanwhile we must remark, how this edict of the king of 
Babylon receives the testimony of the Spirit ; for Daniel has 
no other object or purpose in relating the edict, than to shew 
the fruit of conversion in King Nebuchadnezzar. Hence, 
without doubt, King Nebuchadnezzar bore witness to his 
repentance when he celebrated the God of Israel among all 
people, and when he proclaimed a punishment to all who 
_ spoke reproachfully against God. Hence this passage is 
often cited by Augustine against the Donatists." For they 
_ wished to grant an act of impunity to themselves, when they 
disturbed the Church with rashness and corrupted pure doc- 

1 Ep. elxvi. ad Donat. et alibi. 





246 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, LECT, XVII. 


trine, and even permitted themselves to attack it like rob- 
bers. For some were then discovered to have been slain by 
them, and others mutilated in theirlimbs. Since, then, they 
allowed themselves to act so licentiously and still desired to 
commit crimes with impunity, yet they held this principle as 
of first importance. No punishment ought to be inflicted on 
those who differ from others in religious doctrine ; as we see 
in these days, how some contend far too eagerly about this 
subject. What they desire is clear enough. If any one 
earefully observes them, he will find them impious despisers 
of God ; they wish to render everything uncertain in religion, 
and as faras they can they strive to tear away all the princi- 
ples of piety. With the view then of vomiting forth their 
poison, they strive eagerly for freedom from punishment, 
and deny the right of inflicting punishment on heretics and 
blasphemers. 

Such is that dog Castalio’ and his companions, and all like 
him, such also were the Donatists; and hence, as I have 
mentioned, Augustine cites this testimony in many places, 


and shews how ashamed Christian princes ought to be of © 


their slothfulness, if they are indulgent to heretics and 
blasphemers, and do not vindicate God’s glory by lawful 


punishments, since King Nebuchadnezzar who was never — 


truly converted, yet promulgated this decree by a kind of 


secret instinct. At all events, it ought to be sufficient for — 


men of moderate and quiet tastes to know how King Ne- 


buchadnezzar’s edict was praised by the approval of the Holy — 
Spirit. If this be so, it follows that kings are bound to — 


defend the worship of God, and to execute vengeance upon 


those who profanely despise it, and on those who endeavour _ 
to reduce it to nothing, or to adulterate the true doctrine by 
their errors, and so dissipate the unity of the faith and dis- — 


turb the Church’s peace. This is clear enough from the — 


Prophet’s context ; for Nebuchadnezzar says at first, a 
pleases me to relate the signs and wonders which God has 


1 Sebastian Castalio is here referred to. He was an opponent of Cal- 
vin, and banished from Geneva by his influence. Being a man of exten- 
sive learning he was appointed Greek professor at Basil. See Mosheim, 
cent. xvi. sec. iii. pt. 2, and the authorities there quoted. 


— 








CHAP. Iv. 1-3. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 247 


prepared for me. He had already explained how wonder- 
fully God had treated him ; but this had passed away. Now 
God seizes him a second and even a third time, and then 
he confesses it to be his boast to explain the wonderful 
signs of God. He afterwards breaks forth into the excla- 
mation, How mighty are his signs ! How remarkable his 
miracles! His kingdom is a kingdom of an age, and his 
dominion is from age to age. Without doubt Nebuchad- 
nezzar wished to excite his subjects to the attentive perusal 
of this edict, and to the acknowledgment of its value, and 
thus to subject themselves to the true and only God. He 
calls him Zhe High God, meaning, doubtless, the God of 
Israel ; meanwhile, we do not know whether he cast away his 
superstitions. I however incline to the opposite conjecture, 
since he did not put off his errors, but was compelled to give 
glory to the Most High God. He so acknowledged the God 
of Israel as to join inferior deities with him as allies and 
companions, just as all unbelievers, while admitting one 
supreme deity, imagine a multitude of others. So also Ne- 
buchadnezzar confessed Israel’s God to be Most High ; yet 
he did not correct the idolatry which still flourished under 
his sway ; nay, he mingled and confused the false gods with 
the God of Israel. Thus he did not leave behind his own 
corruptions. He celebrates indeed with magnificence the 
glory of the supreme God, but this is not sufficient without 
abolishing all superstitions, and promoting that religion 
alone which is prescribed by the word of God, and causing 
his pure and perfect worship to flourish. 

In fine, this preface might seem a proof of an important 
conversion ; but we shall directly see how far Nebuchad- 
nezzar was from being entirely purged of his errors. It 
ought, indeed, to affect us exceedingly to behold the king 
wrapt up in so many errors, and yet seized with admiration 
of the Divine virtue, since he cannot express his thoughts, 
but exclaims,— His signs how mighty! his wonders how 
powerful! He added, His kingdom 1s a perpetual kingdom, 
and his dominion is from age to age. Here he confesses 
God’s power not to be dependent upon man’s will, since he 
had just before said, the statue which he had erected was to 





248 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XVII. 
be worshipped, because he had chosen so to decree it. Now, 
however, he remits much of this pride by confessing God’s 
kingdom to be a perpetual one. The narrative now follows. 
Thus far we have merely a preface, because the edict was 


diffused among his subjects to render them attentive to the 


most important subjects. 


4. I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest 
in mine house, and flourishing in my 
palace: 

5. I saw a dream which made me 
afraid, and the thoughts upon my 
bed, and the visions of my head, 
troubled me. 

6. Therefore made I a decree to 
bring in all the wise men of Baby- 
lon before me, that they might make 
known unto me the interpretation of 
the dream. 


4. Ego Nebuchadnezer quietus, 
aut, felix, eram domi mee, et flo- 
rens, aut, viridis, in palatio meo. 

5. Somnium vidi, et exterruit me," 
et cogitationes super cubile meum 
et visiones capitis mei conturbayve- 
runt me. 

6. Et a me positum fuit decretum, 
ut adducerentur, joc est, accerseren- 
tur, coram me omnes sapientes Ba- 
bylonis, qui interpretationem somnii 
patefacerent mihi. 


Nebuchadnezzar here explains how he acknowledged the 
Supreme God. He does not relate the proofs which he had 
previously received ; but since his pride was subdued in this 
last dream, he makes a passing allusion to it. Meanwhile, 
as he doubtless recalled his former dreams to mind, and con- 
demned himself for his ingratitude, in burying in oblivion 
this great power of God, and in wiping away the remem- 
brance of those benefits by which God had adorned him. 
Here, however, he speaks only of his Jast dream, which we 
shall see in its own place. But before, he comes as far as 
the dream, he says, he was at rest. aby, seleh, signifies 
“vest” and “happiness ;” and since prosperity renders men 
secure, it is metaphorically used for “security.” David, 
when he pronounces the same sentence upon himself, uses 
the same words, (Ps. xxx. 6,) “I said in my prosperity,” or 
rest ; sybyy, selueh, which some translate “abundance;” but 
it rather signifies a quiet or prosperous state. Nebuchad- 
nezzar, therefore, here marks the cireumstance of time; 
hence we may know him to have been divinely seized, be- 
cause prosperous fortune had rendered him stupid and 
drunken. There is nothing surprising in this, for the old 
and common proverb is, “fulness is the parent of ferocity,” 


1 Or, I was terrified. The copula may be resolved into the relative 
pronoun, “I saw a dream which frightened or terrified me.”— Calvin. 








CHAP. Iv. 4-6. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 249 


as we see horses when too much fed, prance about and throw 
their riders. Thus also it happens with men. For if God 
treats them rather indulgently and liberally, they become 
fierce and insolent towards all men, and strike off God’s 
yoke, and forget themselves to be but men. And when this 
happened to David, what shall happen to the profane and to 
others who are still too much devoted to the world? For 
David confesses himself to have been so deceived by his 
quiet and felicity, as to determine within himself that he 
had nothing else to fear,—‘“I said in my happiness,” or my 
quiet, “I shall not be removed ;’ and he afterwards adds, 
“O Lord, thou didst chastise me, and I was laid low.” (Ps. 
xxxvill. 7.) Since, therefore, David promised himself per- 
petual quiet in the world, because God spared him for a 
time, how ought our tranquillity to be suspected lest we 
should grow torpid on our lees? Nebuchadnezzar, then, 
does not recite this in vain—TI was quiet at home, I flowrished 
in my palace, since this was the cause of his confidence and 
pride, and of his carelessly despising God. He afterwards 
adds, he saw a dream and was disturbed. He, doubtless, 
wished here to distinguish his dreams from common ones, 
which often arise from either a disturbance of the brain, or 
our daily thoughts, or other causes, as we have elsewhere 
seen. It is not necessary to repeat what we have already 
treated more copiously. It is sufficient to state, briefly, how 
this dream, in which God previously informed him of the 
future punishment at hand, is separated from others which 
are either troubled, or fluctuating, or without reason. He 
says, therefore, he saw a dream, and was disturbed, while he 
was awake. He adds, his thoughts were upon his bed; and 
then, he was disturbed by visions of the head. These expres- 
sions only look towards that heavenly oracle, or vision, or 
dream, of which we shall afterwards speak more fully. It 
follows, he put forth a decree to summon all the wise men of 
Babylon to explain, or make manifest, the interpretation of 
the dream. Doubtless the king often dreamt, and did not 
always call together the Magi and soothsayers, and astro- 
logers, and others who were skilled in the science of divina- 
tion, or at least professed to be so. He did not consult them 


250 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XVII. 


on all his dreams; but because God bad inscribed in his 
heart a distinct mark by which he had denoted this dream, 
hence the king could not rest till he heard its interpretation. 
As we previously saw the authority of the first dream about 
the Four Monarchies and the Eternal Kingdom of Christ 
confirmed, so the king perceived this one to have proceeded 
from heaven. ‘There is another difference between this 
dream and the one formerly explained. For God blotted 
out the remembrance of the dream about the Four Monarchies 
from King Nebuchadnezzar, so that it became necessary for 
Daniel to bring his dream before the king, and at the same 
time to add the interpretation. Daniel was then more 
obscure, for although he proved himself to have excelled all 
the Chaldeans, yet King Nebuchadnezzar would have won- 
dered at him less if he had only been an interpreter of a 
dream. God wished, therefore, to acquire greater reverence 
for his Prophet and his doctrine, when he enjoined upon him 
two duties ; first, the divination of the dream itself, and then 
the explanation of its sense and purpose. In this second 
dream Daniel is only an interpreter. God had already suffi- 
ciently proved him to be endued with a heavenly spirit, 
when Nebuchadnezzar not only called him among the rest 
of the Magi, but separated him from them all. He after- 
wards says: 


7. Then came in the magicians, 7. Tune ingressi sunt magi, as- 
the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and trologi, Chaldzi, hoe est, sapientes, 
the soothsayers: and I told the et physici, vel, mathematici, et som- 
dream before them; but they did nium, inquit, exposui ego coram ipsis, 
not make known unto me the inter- et interpretationem ejus non patefe- 
pretation thereof. cerunt mihi. 


With respect to the words used above, we have formerly 
freed ourselves from all trouble, because we cannot accu- 
rately define what science each professed. Clearly enough 
they covered their shamelessness by honourable titles, 
although they gave themselves up to every possible impos- 
ture. They called themselves by the usual name of learned 
men, when they were really unacquainted with any art or 
science, and deluded mankind by miserable predictions; 
hence, by these words, Daniel comprehended all the Magi, 
soothsayers, astrologers, and augurs, who professed the art 


i 
1 


1 


ee ee 


— 


i sate 





a 


ae 


a 


CHAP. Iv. 8, 9. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 251 
of divination. Here Nebuchadnezzar confesses that le sent 
for these men in vain. Hence it follows, this whole science 
was a fallacy, or, atleast, Daniel’s exposition of the dream 
was not by human skill, but by revelation from heaven. I 
embrace this opinion, since Nebuchadnezzar wished clearly 
to express that Daniel’s power of interpreting his dream did 
not spring from man, but was a singular gift of the Spirit. 
He had considered it a settled point that, if any knowledge 
or skill in divination existed, it must belong to the Magi, 
soothsayers, augurs, and other Chaldeans who boasted in 
the possession of perfect wisdom. This, therefore, was with- 
out controversy—that the astrologers and the rest were most 
powerful in divination, and as far as human faculties would 
allow, nothing escaped them. Hence it follows, on the other 
hand, that Daniel was divinely instructed, since if he had 
been only an astrologer or magician, he must, like others, 
have required a long apprenticeship to this science. Nebu- 
chadnezzar, therefore, wishes here to extol Daniel beyond all 
the Magi, as if he had said—He is a heavenly Prophet! 
And this, also, will appear better from what is added, as 
follows : 


8. But at the last Daniel came in 


before me, (whose name was Belte- 
shazzar, according to the name of my 
god, and in whom is the spirit of the 
-holy gods,) and before him I told 
the dream, saying, 

9. O Belteshazzar, master of the 
magicians, because I know that the 
spirit of the holy gods 7s in thee, and 
no secret troubleth thee, tell me the 
visions of my dream that I have 
seen, and the interpretation thereof. 


8. Quousque tandem coram me 
introductus est Daniel cujus nomen 
Beltsazar secundum nomen dei mei, 
et in quo spiritus deorum sanctorum: 
et somnium coram ipso narravi. 


9. Beltsazar princeps, vel, magis- 
ter, magorum, quia ego novi quod 
spiritus deorum sanctorum in te sif, 
et nullum arcanum te anxium red- 
dit,! visiones somnii mei quod vidi, 
et interpretationem ejus expone. 


Here the king of Babylon addresses Daniel kindly, since 


he saw himself deserted by his own teachers. 


And hence we 


gather that no one comes to the true God, unless impelled 


by necessity. 


Daniel was not either unknown or far off ; for 


we saw him to have been in the palace. Since then the king 
had Daniel with him from the first, why did he pass him 


over 2? 


Why did he call the other Magi from all quarters by 


1 Some translate, “may be troublesome to thee,” but I shall treat this 


word hy and bye.—Calvin. 


252 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XVIII. 


his edict ? Hence, as I have said, it clearly appears he would 
never have given glory to God, unless when compelled by 
extreme necessity. Hence he never willingly submitted to 
the God of Israel; and his affections were clearly but 
momentary, whenever they manifested any sign of piety. 
Because he besought Daniel so imploringly, we see his dis- 
position to have been servile ; just as all proud men swell out 
when they do not need any one’s help, and become over- 
bearing in their insolence ; but when they are reduced to 
extremity, they would rather lick the dust than not obtain 
the favour which they need. Such was the king’s disposi- 
tion, since he willingly despised Daniel, and purposely pre- 
ferred the Magi. But as soon as he saw himself left in dif- 
ficulties, and unable to find any remedy except in Daniel, 
this was his last refuge ; and he now seems to forget his own 
loftiness while speaking softly to God’s holy Prophet. But 
I shall proceed with the rest to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 

Grant, Almighty God, since thou here proposest a remarkable ex- 
ample before our eyes, that we may learn thy power to be so 
great as not to be sufficiently celebrated by any human praises: 
and since we hear how its herald was a profane king, nay, even 
a cruel and proud one, and thou hast afterwards deigned to 
manifest thyself to us familiarly in Christ,—Grant, that in the 
spirit of humility we may desire to glorify thee, and to cleave en- 
tirely to thee. May we declare thee to be ours, not only in 
mouth and tongue, but also in works; not only as our true and 
only God, but our Father, since thou hast adopted us in thine 
only-begotten Son, until at length we enjoy that eternal inherit- 
ance which is laid up for us in heaven by the same Christ our 
Lord,—Amen. 


Lecture Cighteenth. 


9. O Belteshazzar, master of the Magi, since I know that 
the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret can escape 
thee—or overcome thee, as I shall soon explain the word— 
relate the visions of my sleep which I saw, and their inter- 
pretation. We yesterday shewed King Nebuchadnezzar to 
be a suppliant to Daniel, when reduced to extremity. He 








- CHAP. IV. 9. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 253 


did not seek him at first, but consulted his Magicians, and 
he is now compelled to venerate the person whom he had 
despised. He calls him Belteshazzar, and doubtless the 
name severely wounded the Prophet’s mind; for another 
name had been imposed upon him by his parents from his 
earliest infancy; whence he could recognise himself as a 
Jew, and could draw his origin from a holy and elect nation. 
For his change of name was doubtless made by the tyrant’s 
cunning, as we have previously said, as to cause him to forget 
his own family. King Nebuchadnezzar wished, by changing 
his name, to render this holy servant of God degenerate. 
Hence, as often as he was called by this name, he was clearly 
offended in no slight degree. But this evil could not be re- 
medied, since he was a captive, and knew he had to deal 
_ with a people victorious, proud, and crue]. Thus, in the 
last verse, Nebuchadnezzar had used this name according to 
the name of his god. Since then Daniel had a name of his 
own, which his parents had given him by God’s appoint- 
ment, Nebuchadnezzar wished to blot out that sacred name, 
and so called him as a mark of respect Belteshazzar, which 
we may believe to have been deduced from the name of an 
idol. Hence this doubled the Prophet's grief, when he was 
stained with that base spot in bearing an idol’s mark on his 
name; but it was his duty to endure this scourge of God 
among his other trials. Thus God exercised his servant in 
every way by enduring a cross. 

He now calls him Prince of the Magi, and this doubtless 
‘wounded the holy Prophet’s feelings. He wished nothing 
better than separation from the Magi, who deceived the world 
by their impostures and soothsaying. For although they 
were skilled in the science of astrology, and knew some prin- 
ciples worthy of praise, yet we are sure they corrupted all 
the sciences. Hence Daniel did not willingly hear himself 
included among them; but he could not free himself from 
this infamy. Thus we see his patience to have been divinely 
proved in various ways. Now, Nebuchadnezzar adds, because 
I know the spirit of the holy gods to be in thee. Many under- 
stand this of angels; and this interpretation is not objec- 
tionable, as I have hinted elsewhere. For the existence of 





254 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, LECT. XVII, 


a supreme God was known to all the nations, but they fancied 
angels to be inferior deities. Whatever be the true meaning, 
Nebuchadnezzar here betrays his own ignorance, since he 
had made no real progress in the knowledge of the true God; 
because he was entangled in his former errors, and retained 
many gods, as from the beginning he had been imbued with 
that superstition. This passage might have been translated 
in the singular number, as some do, but it would be too 
forced, and the reason for such a translation is too weak ; 
for they think Nebuchadnezzar to have been truly converted ; 
but the vanity of this is proved by the whole context ; and 
being occupied by this opinion, they wish to relieve him from 
all fault. But since it is clear that in this edict of Nebuchad- 
nezzar many proofs of his old ignorance are comprehended, 
there is no reason why we should depart from the simple 
sense of the words. Hence he attributes a divine spirit to 
Daniel, but meanwhile imagines many gods. Since, there- 
fore, the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, he says, and no 
secret overcomes thee. Some translate DIN, anes, to be 
troublesome ; it properly signifies to compel, or to force; 
for those who translate “there is no secret which can sur- 
pass thee,’ depart from the correct sense. Others translate it, 
“to be troublesome.” This would be a more tolerable trans- 
lation, but they would do better by translating, “no secret 
renders thee anxious or perplexed.” If the rules of grammar 
would allow the &, aleph, to be a servile letter, the sense 
would be more suitable. For D3, neseh, signifies to try, 
or prove, and also to elevate. We may translate it, ‘ No- 
secret is loftier than thy understanding ;’ or, “ No secret 
proves thee;” if he had said,—Daniel was endued with a 
divine spirit ;—he does not examine any proposition, and 
has no need to make an experiment in any science, since 
his answer is easy and at hand. But it is necessary to 
remember what I said,—No secret renders thee anxious, or 
confounds thee. Nebuchadnezzar knew this. Then why did 
he not directly call him to himself in his perplexity? As 
Daniel could free him from all perplexity, the king’s ingrati- 
tude is proved, because he admitted the Magi to his counsels, 
and neglected Daniel. We see then how he always endea- 





OHAP. Iv. 9. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, 255 
_ youred to avoid God, till he was drawn along by a violent 
hand, and thereby displayed the absence of conversion. For 
repentance is voluntary, and those only are said to repent 
who willingly return by a change of mind to the God from 
whom they had revolted; and this cannot be done without 
faith and the love of God. He then asks him to relate his 
dream and its interpretation. But the dream was not un- 
known, and he relates it to Daniel. There is, therefore, 
something superfluous in these words, but no doubt about 
the sense—as Nebuchadnezzar only asks for the explanation 
of his dream. It follows :— 


10. Thus were the visions of mine 
head in my bed: I saw, and behold 
a tree in the midst of the earth, and 
the height thereof was great. 

11. The tree grew, and was strong, 
and the height thereof reached un- 
to heaven, and the sight thereof to 
the end of all the earth: 


12. The leaves thereof were fair, 
and the fruit thereof much, and in 
it was meat for all: the beasts of 
the field had shadow under it, and 
the fowls of the heaven dwelt in'the 
nave thereof, and all flesh was fed 
of it. 


10. Visiones autem capitis mei 
super cubile meum, Videbam, et 
ecce arborem in medio terre, et al- 
titudo ejus magna. 

11. Crevit, multiplicata est, ar- 
bor, et invaluit, et altitudo ejus 
pertigit, hoc est, ut altitudo ejus per- 
tingeret, ad cceelos, et conspectus 
ejus ad extremum totius, vel, wni- 
versce, terre. 

12. Ramus ejus pulcher, et fruc- 
tus ejus copiosus,’ et esca omnibus 
in ea: sub ea: umbrabat? bestia 
agri: et in ramis ejus habitabant® 
aves ccelorum, et ex ea alebatur 
omnis caro. 


The following verses ought to be joined on :— 


13. I saw in the visions of my 
head upon my bed, and, behold, a 
watcher and an holy one came down 
from heaven : 

14. He cried aloud. and said thus, 
Hew down the tree, and cut off his 
branches, shake off his leaves, and 
scatter his fruit: let the beasts get 
away from under it, and the fowls 
from his branches: 


15. Nevertheless, leave the stump 
of his roots in the earth, even with 


13. Videbam etiam in visionibus 
capitis mei super cubile meum, et 
ecce vigil et sanctus descendit e 
ceelis. 

14. Clamavit in fortitudine, hoc 
est, fortiter, etita loquutus est, Suc- 
cidite arborem, et diripite folia ejus,* 
excutite ramos ejus, et dispergite 
fructus ejus: fugiat bestia ex umbra 
ejus, de subtus, ad verbum, et aves 
ex frondibus ejus, vel ex ramis ejus. 

15. Tandem imum radicum ejus 
in terra relinquite, et in vinculo ferri, 


* NY, segia, signifies large, or much.—Calvin. 


2 Verbally, took shelter.— Calvin. 
* It is better not to repeat boughs twice, as some do. 


8 Or, nestled.—Calvin. 
I confess the 


word 53}, gnef, here used, “means leaf as well as bough, but NDP, gnefa, 
means bough; hence the repetition is not superfluous—seize or cut off its 
leaves.—Calvin. 


256 


a band of iron and brass, in the 
tender grass of the field; and let it 
be wet with the dew of heaven, and 
let his portion be with the beasts in 
the grass of the earth: 

16. Let his heart be changed 
from man’s, and let a beast’s heart 
be given unto him; and let seven 
times pass over him. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


hoe est, 


pres et seneo, in herba 


agri, et pluvia ccelorum irrigetur, et — 


LEOT. XVIII, 





cum bestia sit portio ejus in herba — 


terre. 


16. Cor ejus ab humano, simpli- 
citer, ab homine, mutent,' et cor 
bestize detur ei: et septem tempora 
transeant super eam. 


Here Nebuchadnezzar relates his dream, of which the in- 


terpretation will follow in its place. Yet because this narra- — 
tive is cold and useless unless we should say something of — 


the subject itself, it is necessary to make some remarks—the 
rest shall be deferred. First of all, under the figure of a tree 
Nebuchadnezzar himself is intended, not because it fully 


represents the king’s office, but because God appointed the — 
existence of governments in the world for this purpose—to — 


be like trees on whose fruits all men feed, and under whose 
shadow they rest. Hence this ordinance of God flourishes, 
because tyrants, however they are removed from the exercise 
of just and moderate dominion, whether they wish it or not, 
are compelled to be like trees; since it is better to live 
under the most cruel tyrant than without any government 
at all. Let us suppose all to be on one equal level, what 
would such anarchy bring forth? No one would wish to 
yield to others; every one would try the extent of his 
powers, and thus all would end in prey and plunder, and in 
the mere license of fraud and murder, and all the passions 
of mankind would have full and unbridled sway. Hence I 
have said, tyranny is better than anarchy, and more easily 
borne, because where there is no supreme governor there is 
none to preside and keep the rest in check. Wherefore they 
philosophize too minutely who think this to be a description 
of a king endued with superior virtues; for there was no 
such superiority in justice and equity in King Nebuchad- 
nezzar. God principally wished to shew, by this figure, with 
what intention and with what political order he desires the 
world to be governed ; and why he sets over it kings and 
monarchies and other magistrates. Then he desired to shew, 
secondly, although tyrants and other princes forget their 


* That is, shall be changed, as elsewhere appears.—Calvin. 


| 





 oHAP.Iv.10-16. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 257 


duty, it is still divinely enjoined upon them, and yet God’s 
grace always shines forth in all governments. Tyrants en- 
deavour to extinguish the whole light of equity and justice, 
and to mingle all things ; but the Lord meanwhile restrains 
them in a secret and wonderful manner, and thus they are 
compelled to act usefully to the human race, whether they 
will or not. This then is the meaning of the figure or image 
of the tree. 

It is now added, the birds of heaven dwelt amidst the 
branches, and the beasts lived by its sustenance—which ought 
to be referred to mankind. For although even the beasts of 
the field profit by political order, yet we know society to 
have been ordained by God for the benefit of men. There 
is no doubt at all of the whole discourse being metaphorical, 
—nay, properly speaking, it is an allegory, since an allegory 
is only a continued metaphor. If Daniel had only repre- 
sented the king under the figure of a tree, it would have 
been a metaphor; but when he pursues his own train of 
thought in a continuous tenor, his discourse becomes alle- 
gorical. He says, therefore, the beasts of the field dwelt 
under the tree, because we are sheltered by the protection of 
magistrates ; and no heat of the sun so parches and burns up 
miserable men as living deprived of that shade under which 
God wished them to repose. The birds of heaven also nestled 
in its boughs and leaves. Some distinguish, with too much 
subtlety, between birds and beasts. It is sufficient for us to 
observe the Prophet noticing how men of every rank feel no 
small utility in the protection of princes; for if they were 
deprived of it, it were better for them to live like wild beasts 


_ than mutually to confide in each other. Such protection is 


needful, if we refiect upon the great pride natural to all, and 


_ the blindness of our self-love, and the furiousness of our lusts. 


As this is the case, God shews, in this dream, how all 
orders among us need the protection of magistrates ; while 
_ pasture and food and shelter signify the various forms of use- 
fulness which political order provides for us. For some 


| might object—they have no need of government either for one 


reason or another; for if we discharge properly all the duties 
of life, we shall always find God’s blessing sufficient for us. 
VOL. I. R 








‘ 


‘ 
= 
<. 


< 


a‘. 


o es 





258 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XVIII. 


4 
( 


It is now added, its height was great ; then, it grew till — 


it reached even to heaven, and its aspect extended itself to 
the furthest bounds of the land. This is restricted to the 
Babylonian monarchy, for there were then other empires in 
the world, but they were either powerless or but slightly 
important. The Chaldeans, also, were then so powerful that 
no prince could approach to such majesty and power. Since, 
therefore, King Nebuchadnezzar was so pre-eminent, the lofti- 
ness of the tree here described is not surprising, though it 
reached to heaven; while the altitude rendered it visible 
throughout the whole land. Some of the rabbis place Baby- 
lon in the middle of the earth, because it was under the same 
line or parallel with Jerusalem—which is very foolish. Those 
also who place Jerusalem in the centre of the earth are equally 
childish; although Jerome, Origen, and other ancient authors, 
treat Jerusalem as in the centre of the world. In this eon- 
jecture of theirs they deserve the laughter of the Cynie¢ who, 
when asked to point out the middle of the earth, touched 
the ground with his staff immediately under his feet ! Then 
when the questioner objected to this determination of the 
centre of the earth, he said, “ Then do you measure the earth!” 
As far as concerns Jerusalem, their conjectures are not 
worth mentioning. That proud Barbinel [ Abarbanel ] wished 
to seem a philosopher, but nothing is more insipid than the 
Jews when they depart from their own rules of grammar; 
and the Lord so blinded them and delivered them up to a 
reprobate sense, when he wished them to be spectacles of 
horrible blindness and prodigious stupidity,—and in a small 
and minute matter that silly fellow shews his absurdity. 

He now says, [ts boughs -were beautiful, and its fruit 
copious. This must be referred to the common opinion of 
the vulgar; for we know men’s eyes to be dazzled by the 


- splendour of princes. For if any one excels others in power, 


all men adore him and are seized with admiration, and are 
-incapable of judging correctly. When the majesty of a gene- 
_ral or a king comes before them, they are all astonished and 


_” perceive nothing, and they do not think it lawful for them 


> «4g to inquire strictly into the conduct of princes. Since, then, 


the power and wealth of King Nebuchadnezzar were so great, 








CHAP. Iv. 10-16. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 259 


no wonder the Prophet says, His branches were beautiful, and 
their fruit copious. But meanwhile we must remember what 
I lately said, namely, God’s blessing shines forth in princes, 
even if they materially neglect their duty, because God does 
not suffer all his grace in them to be extinguished; and 
hence they are compelled to bring forth some fruit. It is 
much better, therefore, to preserve the existence of some 
kind of dominion than to have all men’s condition equal, 
when each attracts the eyes of his neighbours. And this is 
the meaning of what I have said—there was food and provi- 
sion for all, as I have lately explained it. 

The second part of the dream follows here. Hitherto 
Nebuchadnezzar has described the beauty and excellency of 
his state under the figure of a lofty tree which afforded shade 
to the beasts and on whose fruit they fed, and next as giving 
nests to the birds of heaven under its boughs. The cutting 
down of the tree now follows. I saw, says he, in the visions of 
my head upon my couch, and, behold, a watcher and a holy one 
came down from heaven. No doubt we ought to understand 
an angel by a watcher. Ile is called “a holy one,” which is 
only another form of expression for an angel; and they are 
worthy of this name, because they are perpetually watchful: 
in the performance of God’s commands. They are not sub- 
ject to slumber, they are not nourished by either food or 
drink, but live a spiritual life; hence they have no use for 
sleep, which is the result of drink and food. Lastly, as 
angels have no bodies, their very spiritual nature makes 
them watchful. But this phrase not only expresses their 
nature but also their duty ; because God has them at hand to 
fulfil his bidding, and destines them to the performance of 
his commands, hence they are called “watchers.” (Psalm 


ciii. 20.) In this Psalm angels are said to do his bidding, » yu |; - 
because, by an agility incomprehensible to us, they "eS, ees: 


about hither and thither, and fly directly from heaven ts 
- earth, from one end of the world to another—from the rising 
even to the setting sun. Since, therefore, angels can ee 
easily and promptly fulfil God’s orders, they are deservedly 
called “ watchers.” They are called “holy ones,’ - because 

they are not infected by human infirmities. But we are 





260 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XVIII. 


filled with many sins, not merely because we are earthly, 
but since we have contracted pollution from our first parents, 
which vitiates alike the whole body and mind. By this ex- 
pression, then, Nebuchadnezzar desired to distinguish between 
angels and mortals. For although God here sanctifies his 
elect, yet as long as they dwell in the prison of the body 
they never arrive at the holiness of angels. Here then we 
mark the difference between angels and men. Nebuchad- 
nezzar could not understand this by himself, but he was 
taught of God to perceive the destruction of the tree to arise 
not ‘from man but from the Almighty. 

He afterwards adds-—the angel cried with a loud voice, cut 
down the tree, strip off the leaves, cut off its boughs, scatter 
ats fruits, (or throw them away,) and let the beasts flee from 
its shadow, and the birds of heaven dwell no longer under ts 
branches. By this figure God meant to express that King 
Nebuchadnezzar should be for a time like a beast. This 
ought not to seem absurd, although it is but rough to speak 
of a tree being deprived of a human heart, since men know 
trees to have no other life than that usually called vegetable. 
The dignity or excellence of the tree cannot be lessened by 
its being without a human heart, for it never had one origi- 
nally. But though this is rather a rough mode of expression, 
yet it contains in it nothing absurd, although Daniel bends 
a little aside from the strictness of the allegory ; nay, Nebu- 
chadnezzar himself had an allegorical dream, and yet God 
mingled something with it by which he might comprehend 
the meaning veiled under the image of a tree. The angel, 
then, orders the tree to be deprived of its human heart, and 
its bough and fruit to be torn down and cast away, after it 
had been cut down ; next he orders the heart of a beast to be 
given to it, and thus its portion might be with the wild ani- 
mals of the woods. But as this must be repeated elsewhere, 
I now pass it by rather hastily. The general meaning is 
this; King Nebuchadnezzar was to be deprived for a time 
not only of his empire but even of his human sense, and to 
be in no way different from the beasts, since he was unworthy 
of holding even the lowest place among mankind. Although — 
he seemed to surpass the human race in his elevation, yet 








OHAP.IV.10-16. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 261 


he must be cast down and thrown below even the lowest 
mortals ! 

The reason for this punishment follows, when it is added, 
seven times shall pass over him ; and then, do not cut off its 
lowest root, but let the rain of heaven water it; and next, 
his portion shall be with the wild beasts. Although the chas- 
tisement is hard and horrible, when Nebuchadnezzar is ex- 
pelled from the society of men, and rendered like wild beasts ; 
but it is something in his favour when God does not tear 
him up by the roots, but allows the root to remain, for the 
tree to spring up again and flourish, and be planted again 
in its own place, and recover new vigour through its roots. 
Here Daniel reviews the punishment inflicted on King Nebu- 
chadnezzar, in which God afforded a specimen of his clemency, 
in sparing him and not utterly cutting him down, but in 
allowing his root to remain. Some here discourse about 
the mitigation of penalties when God sees those repent whom 
he has chastised with rods; but I do not think it applicable 
here. There was no true conversion in King Nebuchadnezzar, 
as we said before, and shall see again more clearly. God did 
not wish to press him too hard, and this we must attribute 
to his clemency ; because when he seems to set no bounds 
to his punishment of men’s sins, yet in all temporal punish- 
ments he allows men to taste his pity; so that even the re- 
probate remain without excuse. The assertion of some— 
that punishments are not remitted without the fault being 
excused, is false;as we see in the example of Ahab. For 
God remitted the fault to the impious king, but because he 
seemed to shew some signs of repentance, God abstained 
from greater punishment. (1 Kings xxi. 29.) So also we 
may see the same in the case of Nebuchadnezzar. God was 
unwilling utterly to root him out—for the metaphor of the 
tree shews this—but he desired seven times to pass over him. 
Some understand seven weeks, others seven years ; but we 
shall treat this point more copiously by and bye. Lastly, we 
must notice this ; in the midst of the time during which God’s 
wrath seemed to rage against this wretched king, his benefits 
were also mingled with it. We learn this from the words, 
his portion shall be with the beasts of the field ; that is, he 


262 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XIX, 


shall feed upon some food by which life shall be preserved ; i 
and then, it shall be watered or irrigated with the rain of — 


heaven. For God signifies—though he wished to punish — 


King Nebuchadnezzar, and to render him a remarkable ex-— 
ample of his wrath—his knowledge of what he could bear; 
hence, he so tempers his punishment as to leave hope re-— 


maining for the future. Thus he took his food even with 


the beasts of the earth, but he is not deprived of the i rig 4 


tion of the dew of heaven. : 


“ PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we see it so difficult for us to bear — 


prosperity without injury to the mind, that we may remember 
ourselves to be mortal—may our frailty be ever present to our 


eyes, and render us humble, and lead us to ascribe the glory to — 


thee. Being advised by thee, may we learn to walk with anxiety 
and fear, to submit ourselves to thee, and to conduct ourselves 
modestly towards our brethren. May none of us despise or in- 
sult his brother, but may we all strive to discharge our duties 
with moderation, until at length thou gatherest us into that glory 
which has been obtained for us by the blood of thine only-begot- 
ten Son.— Amen. 


Hecture Nineteenth. 


17. This matter is by the decree of 17. In decreto vigilum verbum,? 
the watchers, and the demand by the et in sermone sanctorum postula- 
word of the holy ones; totheintent that tio, ut cognoscant viventes, quod 
the living may knowthat the most High dominator sit excelsus in regno 
ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giv- hominum: et cui voluerit tradet 
eth it to whomsoever he will, and set- illud, et humilem,* hominum’ eri- 
teth up over it the basest of men. get super ipsum. 

In this verse God confirms what he had shewn to the king 
of Babylon by means of a dream. He says, then, the king 
was instructed in a certain thing; since it had been so de- 
termined before God and his angels. The full meaning is 
this,—Nebuchadnezzar must know it to be impossible to 
escape the punishment whose image he had seen in the 
dream. There is, however, some ambiguity in the words, 


1 Or, edict, for it may be conveniently translated so.—Calvin. 
Or, abject.—.Calvin. 8 Or, among men.—Calvin. 





ee 


me 








a ee 





CHAP. Iv. 17. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 263 


since interpreters find great difficulties with the second 
clause ; for they say the angels ask the question, to afford 
proof to the king of Babylon, and that all men may acknow- 
ledge the supreme power of the one God. But this seems to 
me too forced. As far as the word NOAM, pethegma, is con- 
cerned, it signifies ‘‘ word” in Chaldee ; but here I think it 
properly used for “edict,” as in the first chapter of Esther, 
(ver. 20;) and this is a very suitable sense, as the edict was 
promulgated in the decree so that the “word” or vision 
might not prove vain and inefficient ; since God wished to 
point out to the king what was already fixed and determined 
in heaven. We now understand the Prophet’s intention. 
But anew question still remains, because it seems absurd to 
attribute power and authority to those angels, lest in this 
way they seem to be equal to God. We know God to be 
judge alone, and hence it is his proper office to determine 
what pleases him; and if this is transferred to angels, it 
seems as if it lessened his supreme authority, because it is 
not becoming to make them companions of his Majesty. But 
we know it to be no new thing in Scripture for God to join 
angels with himself, not as equals but as attendants, and to 
attribute to them so much honour as to deign to call them 
into counsel. Hence angels are often called God’s counsel- 


lors. As in this place they are said to decree together with 


God; and not by their own will or pleasure, as they say, but 
because they subscribe to God’s judgment. Meanwhile, we 


_ must remark the double character assigned to them. In the 


first clause, Daniel makes them subscribe to the decree, and 
afterwards uses the word demand. And this suits the sense 
well enough; because the angels urge God by their prayers 
to humble all mortals and to exalt himself alone. Thus, 
whatever obscures his glory may be reduced into order. It 
is right for angels constantly to desire this, since we know 
them to desire nothing in comparison with the adoration of 
God by themselves in alliance with all mankind. But when 
they see God’s authority diminished by man’s pride and 
audacity, the object of their demand is that God would re- 
duce under his yoke the proud who erect their crests against 
him, 





264 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XIX, 


We now see why Daniel says, this was declared in the de- 
eree of the watchers, and was demanded in their speech; as 
if he should say, “thou hast all angels opposed to thee; for 
by one consent and with one mouth they accuse thee before 
God, for as far as possible thou obscurest his glory ; and God, 
assenting to their prayers, has determined to cast thee away, 
and to render thee an object of contempt and reproach before 
the whole world ; and this decree has been signed by all the 
angels, as if it were common between him and them. For 
by their subscription and agreement he might prevail in con- 
firming the confidence of the profane king. Without doubt 
God, after his usual manner, accommodated the vision to the 
understanding of a man who never was taught in his law, 
but only imbued with a confused notion of his divinity, so 
that he could not distinguish between God and angels. 
Meanwhile, this sentiment is true—the edict was promul- 
gated at the united consent and demand of the whole celes- 
tial host; for angels bear with the greatest reluctance 
whatever detracts from God’s glory, and all the folly of man- 
kind when they wish to draw and attract to themselves the 
peculiar attributes of the only God. This seems to be the 
genuine sense. The following sentence flows very suitably, 
—mortals must know God to be a ruler in the kingdoms 
of men. For Daniel marks the end of the demand, since 
angels desire God’s rights to remain entire, and to be quite 
unaffected by the ingratitude of mankind. But men cannot 
ascribe even the slightest merit to themselves without de- 
tracting from God’s praise; hence angels continually seek 
from God the casting down of all the proud, and that he will 
not permit himself to be defrauded of his proper rights, 
but maintain in all its integrity his own sovereign powers. 
This also must be diligently observed—mortals should notice 
how the Lord reigns in the kingdoms of men. For even the 
worst of men confess the mighty power of God; they dare 
not draw him down from his heavenly throne by their blas- 
phemies, but they imagine themselves able to obtain and 
defend their worldly kingdoms, by either their exertions or 
their wealth, or by some other means. Unbelievers, there- 
fore, willingly shut up God in heaven, just as Epicurus fancied 








CHAP. Iv. 17. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 265 


him to be enjoying his own delights at his ease. Hence 
Daniel shews God to be deprived of his rights, wnless he is 
recognised as a ruler in the kingdoms of men, that is, on 
earth to humble all whom he pleases. So also it is said in 
the Psalms, (Ixxv. 7,) Power springs not from either the 
east or the west, but from heaven; and elsewhere, God 
raises the poor out of the mire, (Ps. exiii. 6.) Then in the 
sacred Canticle of the Virgin, he casts down the proud from 
their seat, and exalts the abject and the humble... (Luke i. 52.) 
All indeed confess this, but scarcely one in a hundred feels 
in his mind the dominion of God over the earth, and that no 
man can raise himself, or remain in any post of honour, since 
this is the peculiar gift of God. Because men are persuaded 
of this with difficulty, Daniel eloquently expresses it, the 
Lord shall be lofty in the kingdoms of men ; that is, shall not 
only exercise his power in heaven, but also govern the human 
race, and assign to every one his own grade and position. 
He will give it to whom he wills. Ue speaks of different em- 
pires in the singular number ; just as if God had said, some 
are raised up by God’s will, and others are cast down; and 
the whole happens according to God’s pleasure. The mean- 
ing is this—every one has his own condition divinely assigned 
to him; and thus a man’s ambition, or skill, or prudence, or 
wealth, or the help of others, do not profit men in aspiring 
to any altitude, unless God raises them by his stretched 
out hand. Paul also teaches the same thing in other words ; 
there is no power but from God, (Rom. xiii. 1,) and after. 
wards Daniel often repeats the same sentiment. 

He adds, he razses up the humble man above himself. In 
a change so remarkable as this, God’s power shines forth 
better while he raises from the dust those who were formerly 
obscure and contemptible, and even sets them above kings. 
When this happens, profane men say, God is playing with 
them, and rolls men about like balls in his hand, which are 
first tossed upwards and then thrown down upon the ground. 
But they do not consider the reason why God by open 
proofs wishes to shew how we are under his absolute power, 
on which our condition entirely depends; when we do not 
comprehend this of our own accord, examples are necessarily 


266 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XIX, 
set before us by which we are compelled to perceive what 
almost all are willingly ignorant of. We now understand the 
whole intention of the Prophet. Angels seek from God by 
continual prayers to declare his own power to mortals, and 
thus to lay prostrate the proud who think to excel by their 
own power and industry, or else by chance, or by the help 
of men. ‘lo induce God to punish men for their sacrilegious 
deeds, the angels desire him to prostrate them, and thus to 
shew himself to be not only the king and ruler of heaven, 
but also of earth. Now, this not only happens in the case of 
a single king, but we know history to be full of such proofs, 
Whence, then, or from what order have kings often been 
created? And when there was no greater pride in the 
world than in the Roman empire, we see what happened. 
For God brought forward certain monsters which caused the 
greatest astonishment among the Greeks and all the Orien- 
tals, the Spaniards, Italians, and Gauls; for nothing was 
more monstrous than some of the emperors. Then their 
origin was most base and shameful, and God could not shew 
more clearly how empires were not transferred by the will 
of man, nor even acquired by valour, counsel, and powerful 
troops, but remained under his own hand to bestow upon 
whomsoever he pleased. Let us go on: 


18. This dream I king Nebu- 18. Hoe somnium vidi ego Rex 


chadnezzar have seen. Nowthou, O 
Belteshazzar, declare the interpre- 
tation thereof, forasmuch as all the 
wise men of my kingdom are not able 
to make known unto me the inter- 
pretation: but thou art able ; for the 
spirit of the holy gods is in thee. 


Nebuchadnezer: et tu Beltsazar, 


interpretationem enarra,’ quoniam 
cuncti sapientes regni mei non 
potuerunt interpretationem _pate- 
facere mihi: tu vero potes: quia 
spiritus deorum sanctorum in 
te. 


Here Nebuchadnezzar repeats what he had formerly said 
about seeking an interpretation for his dream. He under- 
stood the figure which was shewn to him, but he could not 
understand God’s intentions nor even determine its relation 
to himself. On this point he implores Daniel’s confidence ; 
he affirms his vision in a dream to induce Daniel to pay 
great attention to its interpretation. Then he adds, with 
the same purpose, Adi the wise men of his kingdom could not 


' Verbally, say.— Calvin. 








oHAP. Iv. 19. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 267 
explain the dream; where he confesses all the astrologers, 
and diviners, and others of this kind to be utterly vain and 
fallacious, since they professed to know everything. For 
some were augurs, some conjecturers, some interpreters of 
dreams, and others astrologers, who not only discoursed on 
the course, distances, and orders of the stars, and the peculiar- _ 
ities of each, but wished to predict futurity from the course 
of the stars. Since, therefore, they boasted so magnificently 
in their superior knowledge of all events, Nebuchadnezzar 
confesses them to have been impostors. But he ascribes this 
power in reality to Daniel, because he was endued by the 
divine Spirit. Hence he excludes all the wise men of Baby- 
lon from so great a gift through his having proved them 
destitute of God’s Spirit. He does not assert this in so many 
words, but this meaning is easily elicited from his expressions 
implying all the variety of the Chaldean wise men. Then 
in the second clause he exempts Daniel from their number, 
and states the reason to be his excelling in the divine Spirit. 
Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, here asserts what is peculiar to 
God, and acknowledges Daniel to be his Prophet and minis- 
ter. When he calls angels holy deities, we have mentioned 
this already as an expression which ought not to seem sur- 
prising in a heathen, uninstructed in the true doctrine of 
piety, and only just initiated in its elements. But we know 
this common opinion respecting angels being mingled to- . 
gether with the one God. Hence Nebuchadnezzar speaks in 
the ordinary and received language when he says, the spirit 
of the holy gods dwells in Daniel. It now follows: 


19. Then Daniel (whose name 
was Belteshazzar) was astonied for 
one hour, and his thoughts troubled 
him. ‘The king spake, and said, 
Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or 
the interpretation thereof, trouble 
thee. Belteshazzar answered and 
said, My lord, the dream be to them 
that hate thee, and the interpreta- 
tion thereof to thine enemies. 


19. Tune Daniel, cui nomen Belt- 
sazar, obstupefactus fuit circiter 
horam unam: et cogitationes ejus 
turbabant eum. Respondit rex et 
dixit, Beltsazar, somnium et in- 
terpretatio ¢jws ne conturbet te, 
terreat. Respondit Beltsazar et 
dixit, Domine mi, somnium sit ini- 
micis tuis, et interpretatio ejus 
hostibus tuis. 


Here Daniel relates how he was in some sense astonished. 


And I refer this to the sorrow which the holy Prophet had 
endured from that horrible punishment which God had shewn 


*, “| 


268 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT, XIX, 


under a figure ; nor ought it to seem surprising for Daniel 
to be grievously afflicted on account of the calamity of the 
king of Babylon ; for although he was a cruel tyrant, and 
had harassed and all but destroyed God’s Church, yet since 
he was under his sway, he was bound to pray for him. But 
God had clearly taught the Jews this, by means of Jeremiah, 
Pray ye for the prosperous state of Babylon, because your 
peace shall be init. (Jer. xxix. 7.) At the close of seventy 
years it was lawful for the pious worshippers of God to beg 
him to free them ; but until the time predicted by the Pro- 
phet had elapsed, it was not lawful either to indulge in 
hatred against the king, or to invoke God’s wrath upon 
him. They knew him to be the executor of God’s just 
vengeance, and also to be their sovereign and lawful ruler. 
Since then Daniel was treated kindly by the king when by 
the rights of warfare he was dragged into exile, he ought to 
be faithful to his own king, although he exercised tyranny 
against the people of God. This was the reason why he suf- 
fered so much sorrow from that sad oracle. Others think 
he was in an ecstasy ; but this seems to suit better because 
he does not simply speak of being astonished, but even dis- 
turbed and terrified in his thoughts. Meanwhile, we must 
remark, how variously the Prophets were affected when God 
uses them in denouncing his approaching judgments. When- 
ever God appointed his Prophets the heralds of severe cala- 
mities, they were affected in two ways ; on the one side, they 
condoled with those miserable men whose destruction they 
saw at hand, and still they boldly announced what had been 
divinely commanded ; and thus their sorrow never hindered 
them from discharging their duty freely and consistently. 


In Daniel’s case we see both these feelings. The sympathy, 


then, was right in his condoling with his king and being 
silent for about an hour. And when the king commands 
him to be of good courage and not to be disturbed, we have 
here depicted the security of those who do not apprehend 
the wrath of God. The Prophet is terrified, and yet he is 
free from all evil ; for God does not threaten him, nay, the 
very punishment which he sees prepared for the king, 
afforded the hope of future deliverance. Why then is he 





i 





CHAP. lv. 19. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 269 


frightened? because the faithful, though God spares them 
and shews himself merciful and propitious, cannot view his 
judgments without fear, for they acknowledge themselves 
subject to similar penalties, if God did not treat them with 
indulgence. Besides this, they never put off human affections, 
and so pity takes possession of them, when they see the 
ungodly punished or even subject to impending wrath. For 
these two reasons they suffer sorrow and pain. But the 
impious, even when God openly addresses and threatens 
them, are not moved, but remain stupid, or openly deride 
his power and treat his threats as fabulous, till they feel 
them seriously. Such is the example which the Prophet 
sets before us in the king of Babylon. 

Belteshazzar, he says, let not thy thoughts disturb thee ; let 
not the dream and its interpretation frighten thee! Yet 
Daniel was afraid for his sake. But, as I have already said, 
while the faithful are afraid though they feel God to be pro- 
pitious, yet the impious sleep in their security, and are 
unmoved and unterrified by any threats. Daniel adds the 
cause of his grief,—O my lord, he says, may the dream be 
for thine enemies, and its interpretation to thy foes! Here 
Daniel explains why he was so astonished — because he 
wished so horrible a punishment to be turned away from the 
person of the king; for although he might deservedly have 
detested him, yet he reverenced the power divinely assigned 
to him. Let us learn, therefore, from the Prophet’s example, 
to pray for blessings on our enemies who desire to destroy 
us, and especially to pray for tyrants if it please God to 
subject us to their lust; for although they are unworthy of 
any of the feelings of humanity, yet we must modestly bear 
their yoke, because they could not be our governors without 
God’s permission; and not only for wrath, as Paul admo- 
nishes us, but for conscience’ sake, (Rom. xiii. 5,) otherwise 
we should not only rebel against them, but against God 
himself. But, on the other hand, Daniel shews the impossi- 
bility of his being changed or softened by any sentiment of 
pity, and thus turned from his intended course: 


20. The tree that thou sawest, 20. Arborquam vidisti, que magna 
which grew, and was strong, whose erut et robusta, et cujus magnitudo 


270 


height reached unto the heaven, and 
the sight thereof to all the earth: 

21. Whose leaves were fair, and 
the fruit thereof much, and in it was 
meat for all; under which the beasts 
of the field dwelt, and upon whose 
branches the fowls of the heaven had 
their habitation: 

22. It is thou, O king, that art 
grown and become strong: for thy 
greatness is grown, and reacheth 
unto heaven, and thy dominion to 
the end of the earth. 


Here we see what I have 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 





LECT. XTX. 


pertingebat ad ccelos, et aspectus 
ejus ad totam terram. 

21. Et folium ejus pulchrum 
erat,' et fructus ejus copiosus: et in 
qua,’ cibus cunctis: sub qua habi- 
tabant bestize agri, et in cujus ramis 
quiescebant aves cceli. 


22. Tu es ipse rex, qui multipli- 
catus es et roboratus,’ ita ut magni- 
tudo tua multiplicata fuerit, et per- 
tigerit ad ccelos, et potestas tua ad 
fines terree. 


touched upon, namely, how 


Daniel acted respectfully to the king, and thus was mindful 
of his prophetic duty, while he punctually discharged the 
commands of God. We must notice this distinction, for 
nothing is more difficult for ministers of the Word than to 
maintain this middle course. Some are always fulminating 
through a pretence of zeal, and forget themselves to be but 
men: they shew no sign of benevolence, but indulge in mere 
bitterness. Hence they have no authority, and all their 
admonitions are hateful. Next, they explain God’s Word 
‘with pride and boasting, when they frighten sinners without 
either humanity, or pain, or sympathy. Others, again, who 
are wicked and perfidious flatterers, gloss over the grossest 
iniquities ; they object to both Prophets and Apostles, 
esteeming the fervour of their zeal to have driven away all 
human affections! Thus they delude miserable men, and 
destroy them by their flattery. But our Prophet, as all the 
rest, here shews how God's servants ought to take a middle 
course. Thus Jeremiah, when prophesying adversity, feels 
sorrow and bitterness of spirit, and yet does not turn aside 
from unsparing reproof of the severest threats, as both sprang 
from God. (Jer. ix. 1.) The rest of the prophets also act 
in the same manner. Here Daniel, on the one hand, pities 
the king, and on the other, through knowing himself to be 
the herald of God’s anger, he is not frightened by any dan- 
ger while setting before the king the punishment which he 
had despised. Hence we gather why he was not astonished. 


! That is. whose leaves were beautiful. —Calvin. 
* Verbally, “ in it.”—Calvin. 
’ That is, who hast become great and strong.—Calvin. 





OHAP. Iv. 23,24. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. pay 
He felt no fear of the tyrant, although many do not dare to 
discharge their duty when an odious message is entrusted to 
them, which stimulates the impious and the unbelievers to 
madness. Daniel, however, was not astonished with any 
fear of this kind; he only wished God to act mercifully 
towards his king. For he says here, Thou art king thyself. 
He does not speak with any doubt or hesitation, neither does 
he use obscurity nor a number of excuses, but plainly an- 
nounces king Nebuchadnezzar to be intended by the tree 
which he saw. Hence the tree which thou sawest is large 
and strong, under the shade of which the beasts of the field 
were dwelling, and in the boughs of which the birds of the 
air were making their nests: thou, says he, art the king. 
Why so? Thow hast become great and strong ; thy magni- 
tude has extended to the heavens, and thy power to the ends 
of the earth. Now, what follows ? 


23. And whereas the king saw a 
watcher and an holy one coming 
down from heaven, and saying, Hew 
the tree down, and destroy it; yet 
leave the stump of the roots thereof 
in the earth, even with a band of 
iron and brass, in the tender grass 
of the field; and let it be wet with 
the dew of heaven, and Jet his por- 
tion be with the beasts of the field, 
till seven times pass over him; 

24. This is the interpretation, O 
king, and this is the decree of the 
most High, which is come upon my 
lord the king. 


23. Et quod vidit rex, vigilem, et 
sanctum descendere é ccelis, qui 
dixit :! Succidite arborem, et disper- 
gite eam: tantummodo imum radi- 
cum ejus in terra relinquite: et sit 
in vineulo ferri et «ris in herba 
agri, et rore ccelorum proluatur, et 
cum bestiis agri portio ejus, donec 
septem tempora transeant super 
eam. 


24. Hee interpretatio, rex, et de- 
cretum excelsi est, quod spectat ad 
dominum meum regem. 


Daniel follows up what he had begun with perseverance, 











shewing judgment to be overhanging the king of Babylon. 
He calls him lord, indeed, with cordiality ; meanwhile he 
was the ambassador of the Supreme King, he did not hesi- 
tate to elevate his discourse above the king’s command—as 
all the prophets do who rise up against mountains and hills, 
as Jeremiah does in chap. i. 10. Thus this sentence is 
worthy of notice,—“I have appointed thee over kingdoms 
and peoples, to pluck them up and to plant them, to build 
and to destroy.” God, therefore, wishes to assert so great a 
reverence for his Word, because there is nothing in the 


1 Verbally, “and he said,” for the copula ought to be resolved into the 
relative pronoun.—Calvin. 


272 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, LECT. XIX. 


world so magnificent or splendid which does not yield to it. 
Daniel, then, as far as concerns human events and political 
order, confesses the king to be his master; but meanwhile 
he goes on with the embassy entrusted to him. The king 
then, says he, saw a watcher descend from heaven. He always 
speaks of an angel. We have stated why Scripture calls 
angels “watchers,” since they are at hand to perform God’s 
commands ; and we know God executes his decrees by their 
agency: I said angels always discharge this duty, and keep 
watch over the faithful. But the name “watcher” is a 
general one, and implies the promptness with which angels 
are endued, to enable them to discharge with the utmost 
celerity whatever God enjoins upon them. Thow hast seen, 
then, one descend from heaven, who said, Cut down the tree, 
and scatter it abroad. He repeats what he had said before, 
namely, the time of his punishment was defined here, because 
God would destroy the king of Babylon and all remembrance 
of him. An exception is then added,— Until seven times 
pass over. I have said nothing of those times, but their opi- 
nion 1s probable who take it for an indefinite number, mean- 
ing, until a long time shall pass away. Others think months 
denoted ; others, years; but I willingly incline to this inter- 
pretation, since God wishes for no short time to punish King 
Nebuchadnezzar. It may not seem customary, indeed, but 
as he wished to put forth an example for all ages, he desired 
to prolong his punishment. ‘This, therefore, seems the 
meaning of the seven years; for we know the number seven 
years to signify a long time in Scripture, since it denotes 
perfection. 
PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since thou settest before us our sins, and at 
the same time announcest thyself as our judge, that we may not 
abuse thy forbearance and lay up for ourselves a treasure of 
greater wrath through our sloth and torpor. Grant, also, that 
we may fear thee reverently, and be anxiously cautious our- 
selves: may we be frightened by thy threats, and enticed by thy 
sweetness, and be willing and submissive to thee: may we never 
desire more than to consecrate ourselves entirely to obey thee, 
and to glorify thy name through Jesus Christ our Lord.— Amen. 


1 See DIssERTATION XIV. at the end of this Vol. 





CHAP. Iv. 25. 





COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 273 


Heciure Fwenticth. 


25. That they shall drive thee 
from men, and thy dwelling shall be 
with the beasts of the field, and they 
shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, 
and they shall wet thee with the dew 
of heaven, and seven times shall pass 
over thee, till thou know that the most 


25. Et te expellent ab hominibus, 
et cum bestiis agrestibus erit habi- 
tatio tua: et herba sicut boves te 
pascent, et rore ccelorum te irriga- 
bunt: et septem tempora transi- 
bunt super te, donee cognoscas, 
quod dominator sit excelsus in 
regno hominum, et cui voluerit det 





a ruleth in the kingdom of men, 
and giveth it to whomsoever he will. illud. 


Danie. proceeds with the explanation of the king’s dream, 
to whom the last verse which I explained yesterday applies. 
This ought to be expressed, because this message was sor- 
rowful and bitter for the king. We know how indignantly 
kings are usually compelled not only to submit to orders, 
but even to be cited before God’s tribunal, where they 
must be overwhelmed in shame and disgrace. For we know 
how prosperity intoxicates the plebeian race. What, then, 
ean happen to kings except forgetfulness of the condition of 
our nature when they attempt to free themselves from all 
inconvenience and trouble? For they do not consider them- 
selves subject to the common necessities of mankind. As, 
therefore, Nebuchadnezzar could scarcely bear this message, 
here the Prophet admonishes him in a few words concerning 
the cutting down of the tree as the figure of that ruin which 
hung over him. He now follows this up at length, when he 
says, They shall cast thee out from among men, and thy habi- 
tation shall be with the beasts of the field. When Daniel had 
previously discoursed upon the Four Monarchies, there is no 
doubt about the king’s mind being at first exasperated ; but 
this was far more severe, and in the king’s opinion far less 
tolerable, as he is compared to wild beasts, and cut off from 
the number of mankind, and then he was driven into the 
fields and woods to feed with the wild beasts. If Daniel had 
only said the king was to be despoiled of his royal dignity, 
he would have been greatly offended by that disgrace, but 
when he was subject to such extreme shame, he was, doubt- 
less, inwardly maddened by it. But God still restrained his 
fury lest he should desire to be revenged upon the supposed 
injury which he suffered. For we shall afterwards see from 

VOL. I. S 


Se oe 


274 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XX. 


the context that he did not grow wise again. Since, there- 
fore, he always cherished the same pride, there is no doubt 
of his cruelty, for these two vices were united ; but the Lord 
restrained his madness, and spared his holy Prophet. Mean- 
while, the constancy of God’s servant is worthy of obserya- 
tion, as he does not obliquely hint at what should happen to 
the king, but relates clearly and at length how base and 
disgraceful a condition remained for him. They shall cast 
thee out, says he, from among men. If he had said, thou 
shalt be as it were one of the common herd, and shalt not 
differ from the very dregs of the people, this would have 
been very severe. But when the king is ejected from the 
society of mankind, so that not a single corner remains, and 
he is not allowed to spend his life among ox-herds and swine~ 
herds, every one may judge for himself how odious this would 
be ; nor does Daniel here hesitate to pronounce such a judg- 
ment. 

The following clause has the same or at least similar 
weight,—Thy dwelling, says he, shall be with the beasts of the 
field, and its herb shall feed thee. The plural number is used 
indefinitely in the original; and hence it may be properly 
translated, “Thou shalt feed on grass; thou shalt be watered 
by the dew of heaven; thy dwelling shall be with wild beasts.” 
I do not wish to philosophize with subtlety, as some do, who 
understand angels. I confess this to be true; but the Pro- 
phet simply teaches punishment to be at hand for the king 
of Babylon, while he should be reduced to extreme ignominy, 
and differ in nothing from the brutes. This liberty, there- 
fore, as I have said, is worthy of notice, to shew us how 
God’s servants, who have to discharge the duty of teaching, 
cannot faithfully act their part unless they shut their eyes 
and despise all worldly grandeur. Hence, by the example 
of the king, let us learn our duty, and not be stubborn and 
perverse when God threatens us. Although, as we have said, 
Nebuchaduezzar did not grow wise, as the context will shew 
us, yet we shall see how he bore the terrible judgment de- 
nounced against him. If, therefore, we, who are but as refuse 
compared to him, cannot bear God’s threats when they are 
set before us, he will be our witness and judge, who, though 








CHAP. Iv. 25. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 275 


possessed of such mighty power, dared nothing against the 
Prophet. Now, at the end of the verse, the sentence for- 
merly explained is repeated,—Until thou dost acknowledge, 
says he, how great a Lord there is in the kingdom of men, 
who delivers it to whomsoever he will. This passage teaches 
us again how difficult it is for us to attribute supreme power 
to God. In our language, indeed, we are great heralds of 
God's glory, but still every one restricts his power, either 
by usurping something to himself, or by transferring it to 
some one else. Especially when God raises us to any de- 
gree of dignity, we forget ourselves to be men, and snatch 
away God’s honour from him, and desire to substitute our- 
selves for him. This disease is cured with difficulty, and 
the punishment which God inflicted on the king of Babylon 
is an example to us. A slight chastisement would have 
been sufficient unless this madness had been deeply seated 
in his bowels and marrow, since men claim to themselves 
the peculiar property of God. Hence they have need of a 
violent medicine to learn modesty and humility. In these 
days, monarchs, in their titles, always put forward them- 
selves as kings, generals, and counts, by the grace of God; 
but how many falsely pretend to apply God’s name to them- 
selves, for the purpose of securing the supreme power! For 
what is the meaning of that title of kings and princes—“ by 
the grace of God?” except to avoid the acknowledgment of 
a superior. Meanwhile, they willingly trample upon that 
God with whose shield they protect themselves,—so far are 
they from seriously thinking themselves to reign by his per- 
mission! It is mere pretence, therefore, to boast that they 
reign through God’s favour. Since this is so, we may easily 
judge how proudly profane kings despise God, even though 
they make no fallacious use of his name, as those triflers who 
openly fawn upon him, and thus profane the name of his 
grace! It now follows: | 


26. And whereas they command- 26. Et quod dixerunt de relin- 
ed to leave the stump of the tree quenda radice stirpium arboris, 
roots; thy kingdom shall be sure regnum tuum tibi stabit, ex quo 
unto thee, after that thou shalt have cognoveris quod potestas sit colo- 
known that the heavens do rule. rum.} 


1 Or, that there is dominion in the heavens.—Calvin. 





276 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XX. 


Here Daniel closes the interpretation of the dream, and 
shews how God did not treat King Nebuchadnezzar so 
severely by not giving way to clemency. He mitigates, in- 
deed, the extreme rigour of the punishment, to induce Nebu- 
chadnezzar to call upon God and repent, through indulging 
the hope of pardon, as a clearer exhortation will afterwards 
follow. But Daniel now prepares him for penitence, by 
saying His kingdom should stand. For God might cast him 
out from intercourse with mankind, and thus he would 
always remain among wild beasts. He might instantly 
remove him from the world; but this is a mark of his ele- 
mency, since he wished to restore him, not to a merely 
moderate station, but to his former dignity, as if it had 
never been trenched upon. We see, therefore, how useful 
the dream was to King Nebuchadnezzar, so long as he did 
not despise the Prophet’s holy admonition, through ingrati- 
tude towards God; because Daniel not only predicted the 
slaughter which was at hand, but brought at the same time 
a message of reconciliation. God, therefore, had instructed 
the king to some purpose, unless he had been unteachable 
and perverse, like the majority of mankind. Besides, we 
may gather from this the general doctrine of our being in- 
vited to repentance when God puts an end to his chastise- 
ments; since he sets before us a taste of his clemency to 
induce in us the hope of his being entreated, if we only fly 
to him heartily and sincerely. We must notice also what 
Daniel adds in the second part of the verse, from which thow 
mayest know that there is power in heaven: for under these 
words the promise of spiritual grace is included. Since God 
will not only punish the king of Babylon, to humble him, 
but will work in him and change his mind, as he afterwards 
fulfilled, though at a long interval. 

From which thou shalt know, then, says he, that power is 
an heaven. I have stated the grace of the Spirit to be here 
promised, as we know how badly men profit, even if God 
repeats his stripes an hundredfold. Such is the hardness 
and obstinacy of our hearts—for we rather grow more and 
more obdurate, while God calls us to repentance. And, 
doubtless, Nebuchadnezzar had been like Pharaoh, unless 


CHAP. Iv. 27. COMMENTARIES ON DANTEL. Ove 


God had humbled him, not only with outward penalties, but 
had added also the inward instinct of his Spirit, to allow 
himself to be instructed, and to submit himself to the judg- 
ment and power of heaven. Daniel means this when he 
says, Wherefore thou shalt know; for Nebuchadnezzar would 
never have acquired this knowledge of his own accord, unless 
he had been touched by the secret movement of the Spirit. 
He adds, That there is power in heaven; meaning, God 
governs the world and exercises supreme power ; for he here 
contrasts heaven with earth, meaning all mankind. For if 
kings see all things tranquil around them, and if no one 
causes them terror, they think themselves beyond all chance 
of danger, as they say ; and through being desirous of cer- 
tainty in their station, they look round on all sides, but 
never raise their eyes upwards to heaven, as if God did not 
concern himself to behold the kingdoms of the earth, and to 
set up whom he would, and to prostrate all the proud. The 
princes of this world never consider their power to be from 
heaven, as if this were entirely out of God’s hands; but, as 
I have said, they look right and left, before and behind. 
This is the reason why Daniel said, Power is from heaven. 
There is a contrast then between God and all mankind, as if 
he had said, Thou shalt know God reigns—as we have for- 
merly seen. It follows: 


27. Wherefore, O king, let my 27. Propterea, rex, consilium 
counsel be acceptable unto thee, and meum placeat apud te,! et peccata 
break off thy sins by righteousness, tua? justitia redimas,* et iniquita- 
and thine iniquities by shewing tem tuam in misericordia erga pau- 
mercy to the poor; if it may be a peres: ecce erit prolongatio paci 
lengthening of thy tranquillity. tuee.* 


Since interpreters do not agree about the sense of these 
words, and as the doctrine to be derived from them depends 
partly upon that, we must remark, in the first place, that 


5599, meleki, means “my counsel.” Some translate it “my 


1 5Y, shepher, signifies to be beautiful; but it is metaphorically trans- 
ferred to approbation or complacency, as the phrase is, “therefore my 
counsel shall please thee.”—Calvin. 

2 Or, “that” for 1, vaw, may be used in this way.—Calvin. 

® So it is usually translated: we shall discuss the word by and bye.— 
Calvin. 

* The Greeks translate—if by chance—or a medicine for their error.— 
Calvin. ; 





278 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XX. 


king,” and both words are derived from the same root bn, 
melek, signifying “ to reign ;” but it also signifies “ counsel.” 
There is no doubt that this passage ought to be explained 
thus :—May my counsel therefore please thee, and mayest thou 
redeem thy sins. The word Py", peruk, is here translated 
“to redeem ;” it often signifies “ to break off,” or “separate,” 
or “abolish.” In this passage it may conveniently be trans- 
lated, “separate or break off thy sins” by pity and humanity; 
as if he had said, Thus thou shalt make an end of sin, and 
enter upon a new course, and thus thy cruelty may be 
changed into clemency, and thy tyrannical violence into pity, 
But this is not of much consequence. The verb often signi- 
fies to free and to preserve ; the context does not admit the 
sense of preserving, and it would be harsh to say, Free thy 
sins by thy righteousness. Hence I readily embrace the 
sense of Daniel exhorting the king of Babylon to a change 
of life, so as to break off his sins in which he had too long 
indulged. With respect to the clause at the end of the verse, 
behold there shall be a cure for thine error, as I have men- 
tioned, the Greeks translate, “if by chance there should be 
a cure;”’ but the other sense seems to suit better; as if he 
had said, “this is the proper and genuine medicine,” some 
translate, “a promulgation,” since “JIN, arek, signifies “to 
produce ;” and at the same time they change the significa- 
tion of the other noun, for they say, “there shall be a pro- 
longation to thy peace or quiet.” That sense would be 
tolerable, but the other suits better with the grammatical 
construction ; besides, the more received sense is, thas medi- 
cine may be surtable to the error. <A different sense may be 
elicited without changing the words at all; there shall be a 
medicine for thine errors; meaning, thou mayest learn to 
cure thine errors. For length of indulgence increases the 
evil, as we have sufficiently noticed. Hence this last part of 
the verse may be taken, and thus Daniel may proceed with 
his exhortation ; as if he had said,—it is time to cease from 
thine errors, for hitherto thou hast deprived thyself of all 
thy senses by giving unbridled license to thy lusts. If, there- 
fore, there is any moderation in thine ignorance, thou mayest 
open thine eyes and understand at length how to repent. 


» » 2. eee 
J _ 
. : 
é i P 
I 


CHAP. Iv. 27. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 279 


I now return to the substance of the teaching. May my 
counsel please thee! says he. Here Daniel treats the pro- 
fane king more indulgently than if he had addressed his own 
nation ; for he used the prophetic office. But because he 
knew the king did not hold the first rudiments of piety, 
he here undertakes only the office of a counsellor, since 
he was not an ordinary teacher. As to Nebuchadnezzar 
sending for him, this was not a daily thing, nor did he do 
this, because he wished to submit to his doctrine. Daniel 
therefore remembers the kind of person with whom he was 
treating, when he tempers his words and says, may my 
counsel be acceptable to thee! He afterwards explains his 
counsel in a few words,—Break away, says he, thy sins—or 
east them away—by righteousness, and thy iniquities by pity 
to the poor. There is no doubt that Daniel wished to exhort 
the king to repentance; but he touched on only one kind, 
which we know was very customary with the Prophets. For 
when they recall the people to obedience by repentance, they 
do not always explain it fully, nor define it generally, but 
touch upon it by a figure of speech, and treat only of the 
outward duties of penitence. Daniel now follows this custom. 
If inquiry is made concerning the nature of repentance, it is 
the conversion of man towards God, from whom he had been 
alienated. Is this conversion then only in the hands, and 
feet, and tongue? Does it not rather begin in the mind and 
the heart, and then pass on to outward works? Hence true 
penitence has its source in the mind of men, so that he who 
wished to be wise must set aside his own prudence, and put 
away his foolish confidence in his own reason. Then he must 
subdue his own depraved affections and submit them to God, 
and thus his outward life will follow the inward spirit. Be- 
sides this, works are the only testimonies to real repentance ; 
for it is a thing too excellent to allow its root to appear to 
human observation. By our fruits therefore we must testify 
our repentance. But because the duties of the second table, 
in some sense, open the mind of man; hence the Prophets 
in requiring repentance, only set before us the duties of 
charity, as Daniel says. Redeem, therefore, thy sins, says 
he, or break away, or cast them away—but how? namely, 


280 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XX. 


by righteousness. Without doubt the word “justice” means 
here the same as “grace” or “pity.” But those who here 
transfer “ grace” to “faith,” twist the Prophet’s words too 
violently ; for we know of nothing more frequent among the 
Hebrews than to repeat one and the same thing under two 
forms of speech. As, therefore, Daniel here uses sins and 
iniquities in the same sense, we conclude justice and pity 
ought not to be separated, while the second word expresses 
more fully the sense of justice. For when men see their life 
must be changed, they feign for themselves many acts of 
obedience which scarcely deserve the name. They have no 
regard for what pleasea God, nor for what he commands in 
his word ; but just as they approve of one part or another, 
they thrust themselves rashly upon God, as we see in the 
Papacy. For what is a holy and religious life with them ? 
To run about here and there ; to undertake pilgrimages im- 
posed by vows; to set up a statue ; to found masses, as they 
call it ; to fast on certain days; and to lay stress on trifles 
about which God has never said a single word. As, there- 
fore, men err so grossly in the knowledge of true righteous- 
ness, the Prophet here adds the word “pity” by way of 
explanation ; as if he had said, Do not think to appease God 
by outward pomps, which delight mankind because they are 
carnal and devoted to earthly things, and fashion for them- 
selves a depraved idea of God according to their own imagi- 
nation ; let not then this vanity deceive you; but learn how 
true justice consists in pity towards the poor. In this second 
clause, then, only a part of the idea is expressed, since true 
justice is not restricted simply to the meaning of the word, 
but embraces all the duties of charity. Hence we ought to 
deal faithfully with mankind, and not to deceive either rich 
or poor, nor to oppress any one, but to render every one his 
own. But this manner of speaking ought to be familiar to 
us, if we are but moderately versed in the prophetic writings. 

The meaning of the phrase is this:—Daniel wished to 
shew the king of Babylon the duty of living justly, and cul- 
tivating faith and integrity before men, without forgetting 
the former table of the law. For the worship of God is more 
precious than all the righteousness which men cultivate 











| a= 


CHAP. Iv. 27. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 281 


among themselves. But true justice is known by its outward 
proofs, as I have said. But he treats here the second table 
rather than the first: for, while hypocrites pretend to wor- 
ship God by many ceremonies, they ‘allow themselves to 
commit all kinds of cruelty, rapine, and fraud, without obey- 
ing any law of correct living with their neighbours. Because 
hypocrites cover their malice by this frivolous pretence, 
God sets before them a true test to recall them to the 
duties of charity. This, then, is the meaning of the verse 
from which we have elicited a double sense. If we retain 
the future time, behold, there shall be a medicine! it will be 
a confirmation of the former doctrine; as if he had said, 
We must not travel the long and oblique circuits—there is 
this single remedy: or, if we are better pleased with the 
word of exhortation, the context will be suitable ; may there 
be a medicine for thine errors! Mayest thou not indulge 
thyself hereafter as thou hast hitherto done, but thou must 
open thine eyes and perceive how miserably and wickedly 
thou hast lived, and so desire to heal thine errors. As the 
Papists have abused this passage, to shew God to be ap- 
peased by satisfactions, it is too frivolous and ridiculous to 
refute their doctrine ; for when they speak of satisfactions, 
they mean works of supererogation. If any one could fulfil 
God’s law completely, yet he could not satisfy for his sins. 
The Papists are compelled to confess this; what then re- 
mains ?—The offering to God more than he demands, which 
they call works not required! But Daniel does not here 
exact of King Nebuchadnezzar any work of supererogation ; 
he exacts justice, and afterwards shews how a man’s life 
cannot be justly spent unless humanity prevails and flourishes 
among men, and especially when we are merciful to the poor. 


‘Truly there is no supererogation here! To what end then 


serves thelaw? Surely this has no reference to satisfactions, 
according to the ridiculous and foolish notions of the Papists! 
But if we grant them this point, still it does not follow that 
their sins are redeemed before God, as if works compensated 
either their fault or penalty, as they assert ; for they confess 
their fault not to be redeemed by satisfactions—this is one 
point gained—and then as to the penalty, they say it is re- 


282 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XX. 


deemed ; but we must see whether this agrees with the Pro- 
phet’s intention. 

I will not contend about a word; I will allow it to mean 
“to redeem”—Thou mayest redeem thy sins; but we must 
ascertain, whether this redemption is in the judgment of God 
or of man? Clearly enough, Daniel here regards the con- 
duct of Nebuchadnezzar as unjust and inhuman, in harassing 
his subjects, and in proudly despising the poor and miserable. 
Since, therefore, he had so given himself up to all iniquity, 
Daniel shews the remedy; and if this remedy is treated as 
a redemption or liberation, there is nothing absurd in saying, 
we redeem our sins before men while we satisfy them. I 
redeem my sins before my neighbour, if after I have injured 
him, I desire to become reconciled to him, I acknowledge 
my sins and seek for pardon. If, therefore, I have injured 
his fortunes, I restore what I have unjustly taken, and thus 
redeem my transgression. But this does assist us in ex- 
piating sin before God, as if the beneficence which I put in 
practice was any kind of expiation. We see, therefore, the 
Papists to be foolish and silly when they wrest the Prophet’s 
words to themselves. We may now inquire in the last place, 
to what purpose Daniel exhorted King Nebuchadnezzar to 
break away from or redeem his sins? Now this was either 
a matter of no consequence—which would be absurd—or it 
was a heavenly decree, as the king’s dream was a promulga- 
tion of the edict, as we have formerly seen. But this was 
determined before God, and could not be changed in any 
way; it was therefore superfluous to wish to redeem sins. 
If we follow a different explanation, no difficulty will remain ; 
but even if we allow the Prophet to be here discoursing of 
the redemption of sins, yet the exhortation is not without 
its use. 

In whatever way Nebuchadnezzar ought to prepare to bear 
God’s chastisement, yet this would prove most useful to him, 
to acknowledge God to be merciful. And yet the time might 
be contracted, during which his obstinate wickedness should 
extend ; not as if God changed his decree, but because he 
always warns by threatening, for the purpose of treating men 
more kindly, and tempering vigour with his wrath, as is 





CHAP. Iv. 27. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 283 


evident from many other examples. This would not have 
been without its use to a teachable disposition, nor yet with- 
out fruit, when Daniel exhorted King Nebuchadnezzar to re- 
deem his sins, because he might obtain some pardon, even if 
he had paid the penalty, since not even a single day had 
been allowed out of the seven years. Yet this was a great 
progress, if the king had at last humbled himself before God, 
so as to be in a fit state for receiving the pardon which had 
been promised. For as a certain time had been fixed be- 
forehand, or at least shewn by the Prophet, hence it would 
have profited the king, if through wishing to appease his 
judge he had prepared his mind for obtaining pardon. This 
doctrine was therefore in every way useful, because the same 
reason avails with us. We ought always to be prepared to 
suffer God’s chastisements; yet it is no slight or common 
alleviation of our sufferings, when we so submit ourselves to 
God, as to be persuaded of his desire to be propitious to us, 
when he sees us dissatisfied with ourselves, and heartily de- 
testing our transgressions. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, that we may learn to bear patiently all ad- 
verse misfortunes, and know that thou exercisest towards us the 
duties of a judge, as often as we are afilicted in this world. Thus 
may we prevent thy wrath, and so condemn ourselves with true 
humility, that trusting in thy pity we may always flee to thee, 
relying upon the mediation of thy only-begotten Son, which thou 
hast provided for us. Grant, also, that we may beg pardon of 
thee, and resolve upon a true repentance, not with vain and use- 
less fictions, but by true and serious proofs, cultivating true 
charity and faith among ourselves, and testifying in this way our 
fear of thy name, that thou mayest be truly glorified in us by 
the same our Lord.—Amen. 


Becture Twenty-first. 


28. All this came upon the king 28. Hoc totum impletum fuit, vel, 
Nebuchadnezzar. incidit, super Nebuchadnezer regem 
29. At the end of twelve months 29. In fine mensium duodecim,' 


1 That is, after twelve months. —Calvin. 


284 


he walked in the palace of the king- 
dom of Babylon. 

30. The king spake, and said, Is 
not this great Babylon, that I have 
built for the house of the kingdom, 
by the might of my power, and for 
the honour of my majesty ? 

31. While the word was in the 
king’s mouth, there fell a voice from 
heaven, saying, O king Nebuchad- 
nezzar, to thee it is spoken; The 
kingdom is departed from thee: 

32. And they shall drive thee from 
men, and thy dwelling shall be with 
the beasts of the field: they shall 
make thee to eat grass as oxen, and 
seven times shall pass over thee, un- 
til thou know that the most High 
ruleth in the kingdom of men, and 
giveth it to whomsoever he will. 


After Nebuchadnezzar has 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


= al ” * id i 
a. 
| ae 


LECT, XXI. 


in palatio regni, quod est in Baby- 
lone, deambulabat. 

30. Loquutus est rex et dixit, An 
non hee est Babylon magna, quam 
ego seedificavi in domum regni,' in 
robore fortitudinis mez, et in pre- 
tium, vel, excellentiam, decoris mei ? 

31. Adhuc sermo erat in ore regis,? 
vox e ceelis cecidit, Tibi dicunt, rex 
Nebuchadnezer, regnum twum mi- 
gravit, vel, discessit, abs te. 


32. Et ex hominibus te ejicient, 
et cum bestia egri habitatio tua: 
herbam sicuti boves gustare te faci- 
ent :* et septem tempora transibunt 
super te, donee cognoseas quod do- 
minator sit excelsus in regno homi- 
num, et cui voluerit det illud. 


related Daniel to be a herald 


of God’s approaching judgment, he now shews how God 
executed the judgment which the Prophet. had announced, 
But he speaks in the third person, according to what we 
know to be a common practice with both the Hebrews and 
Chaldees. Thus Daniel does not relate the exact words of 
the king, but only their substance. Hence he first intro- 
duces the king as the speaker, and then he speaks himself 
in hisown person. There is no reason why this variety should 
occasion us any trouble, since it does not obscure the sense. 
In the first verse, Nebuchadnezzar shews the dream which 
Daniel had explained not to have been in vain. Thus the 
miracle shews itself to be from heaven, by its effects ; be- 
cause dreams vanish away, as we know well enough. But 
since God fulfilled, at his own time, what he had shewn to 
the king of Babylon by his dream, it is clear there was 
nothing alarming in the dream, but a sure revelation of the 
future punishment which fell upon the king. Its modera- 
tion is also expressed. Daniel says, when a year had passed 
away, and the king was walking in his own palace, and 
boasting in his greatness, at that moment a voice came down 
from heaven, and repeated what he had already heard in 
That is, that it may be a royal seat.— Calvin. 


? That is, when the speech was in the king’s mouth.—Calvin. 
* Or, the grass shall feed thee as it does oxen.— Calvin. 






g 














CHAP.IY. 28-382. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 285 


the dream. He afterwards relates how he had been expelled 
from human society, and dwelt for a long time among the 
brutes, so as to,differ from them in nothing. As to the use of 
words, since bmp, mehelek, occurs here, some think that he 
walked upon the roof of his palace, whence he could behold 
all parts of the city. The inhabitants of the east are well 
known to use the roofs of their houses in this way; but I do 


_ not interpret the phrase with such subtlety, since the Pro- 


phet seems to wish nothing else than to shew how the king 
enjoyed his own ease, luxury, and magnificence. There is 
nothing obscure in the rest of the language. 

I now approach the matter before us. Some think Ne- 
buchadnezzar to have been touched with penitence when in- 
structed by God’s anger, and thus the time of his punish- 
ment was put off. This does not seem to me probable, and 
I rather incline to a different opinion, as God withdrew 
his hand till the end of the year, and thus the king’s pride 
was the less excusable. The Prophet’s voice ought to have 
frightened him, just as if God had thundered and lightened 
from heaven. He now appears to have been always like him- 
self. I indeed do not deny that he might be frightened by 
the first message, but I leave it doubtful. Whichever way 
it is, I do not think God spared him for a time, because he 
gave some signs of repentance. I confess he sometimes in- 
dulges the reprobate, if he sees them humbled. An example 
of this, sufficiently remarkable, is displayed in King Ahab. 
(1 Kings xxi. 29.) He did not cordially repent, but God 
wished to shew how much he was pleased with his penitence, 
by pardoning a king impious and obstinate in his wicked- 
ness. The same might be said of Nebuchadnezzar, if Scrip- 
ture had said so; but as far as we can gather from these 
words of the Prophet, Nebuchadnezzar became prouder and 
prouder, until his sloth arrived at itsheight. The king con- 
tinued to grow proud after God had threatened him so, and 
this was quite intolerable. Hence his remarkable stupidity, 
since he would have been equally careless had he lived an 
hundred years after he heard that threat! Finally, I think 
although Nebuchadnezzar perceived some dreadful and hor- 
rible punishment to be at hand, yet, while frightened for the 


286 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXI. 


time, he did not lay aside his pride and haughtiness of mind. 
Meanwhile, he might think this prediction to be in vain ; and 
what he had heard probably escaped from his mind for a 
long time, because he thought he had escaped ; just as the 
impious usually abuse God’s forbearance, and thus heap up 
for themselves a treasure of severer vengeance, as Paul says, 
(Rom. ii. 5.) Hence he derided this prophecy, and hardened 
himself more and more. Whatever sense we attach to it, 
nothing else can be collected from the Prophet’s context, 
than the neglect of the Prophet’s warning, and the oracle 
rendered nugatory by which Nebuchadnezzar had been called 
to repentance. If he had possessed the smallest particle of 
soundness of mind, he ought to flee to the pity of God, and 
to consider the ways in which he had provoked his anger, 
and also to devote himself entirely to the duties of charity. 
As he had exercised a severe tyranny towards all men, so he 
ought to study benevolence ; yet when the Prophet exhorted 
him, he did not act thus, but uttered vain boastings, which 
shew his mind to have been swollen with pride and contempt 
for God. As tothe space of time here denoted, it shews how 
God suspended his judgments, if perchance those who are 
utterly deplorable should be reclaimed ; but the reprobate 
abuse God’s humanity and indulgence, as they make this an 
occasion of hardening their minds, while they suppose God 
to cease from his office of judge, through his putting it off 
fora time. At the end, then, of twelve months, the king was 
walking in his palace ; he spoke, and said. This doubling of 
the phrase shews us how the king uttered the feelings of 
premeditated pride. The Prophet might have said more 
simply, The king says,—but he says, he spoke, and said. I 
know how customary it is with both the Hebrews and Chal- 
dees to unite these words together ; but I think the repeti- 
tion emphatic in this place, since the king then uttered what 
he had long ago conceived and concealed in his mind ; Js not 
this great Babylon, which I have built for a royal palace, and 
that too in the mightiness of my valour ; as I have built it in 
the splendour of my excellency ? In these words we do not 
see any open blasphemy which could be very offensive to 
God, but we must consider the king by this language to 








CHAP. Iv. 28-32. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 287 


claim to himself supreme power, as if he were God! We 
may gather this from the verse, “ Is not this great Babylon ?” 
says he. He boasts in the magnitude of his city, as if he 
wished to raise it giant-like to heaven ; which J, says he— 
using the pronoun with great emphasis—which I have built, 
and that too in the greatness of my valour. We see that by 
claiming all things as his own, he robs God of all honour. 
Before I proceed further, we must see why he asserts Ba- 
bylon to have been founded by himself. All historians agree 
in the account of the city being built by Semiramis. A long 
time after this event, Nebuchadnezzar proclaims his own 
praises in building the city. The solution is easy enough. 
We know how earthly kings desire, by all means in their 
power, to bury the glory of others, with the view of exalting 
themselves and acquiring a perpetual reputation. Especially 
when they change anything in their edifices, whether palaces 
or cities, they wish to seem the first founders, and so to ex- 
tinguish the memory of those by whom the foundations were 
really laid. We must believe, then, Babylon to have been 
adorned by King Nebuchadnezzar, and so he transfers to 
himself the entire glory, while the greater part ought to be 
attributed to Semiramis or Ninus. Hence this is the way 
in which tyrants speak, as all usurpers and tyrants do, when 
they draw towards themselves the praises which belong to 
others. J, therefore, says he, have built it, by the strength of 
my hand. Now it is easy to see what had displeased God in 
this boasting of the king of Babylon, namely, his sacri- 
legious audacity in asserting the city to have been built by 
his own mightiness. But God shews this praise to be peculiar 
to himself and deservedly due to him. Unless God builds 
the city, the watchman watches but in vain. (Psalm exxvii. 
1.) Although men labour earnestly in founding cities, yet 
they never profit unless God himself preside over the work. 
As Nebuchadnezzar here extols himself and opposes the 
strength of his fortitude to God and his grace, this boasting 
was by no means to be endured. Hence it happened that 
God was so very angry with him. And thus we perceive 
how this example proves to us what Scripture always 
inculeates,—God’s resistance of the proud, his humbling 





288 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXI. 


their superciliousness, and his detestation of their arrogance. 
(Psalm xviii. 27.) Thus God everywhere announces himself 
as the enemy of the proud, and he confirms it by the present 
example, as if he set before us in a mirror the reflection of 
his own judgment. (James iv. 6; | Peter v. 5.) This is 
one point. The reason also must be noticed why God de- 
clares war on all the proud, because we cannot set ourselves 
up even a little, without declaring war on God; for power 
and energy spring from him. Our life is in his hands; we 
are nothing and can do nothing except through him. What- 
ever, then, any one assumes to himself he detracts from God. 
No wonder then if God testifies his dislike of the haughty 
superciliousness of men, since they purposely weary him 
when they usurp anything as their own. Cities, indeed, are 
truly built by the industry of men, and kings are worthy of 
praise who either build cities or adorn them, so long as they 
allow God’s praise to be inviolate. But when men exalt 
themselves and wish to render their own fortitude conspicu- 
ous, they bury as far as they can the blessing of God. Hence 
it is necessary for their impious rashness to be judged: by 
God, as we have already said. The king also confesses his 
vanity when he says, I have built it for a royal palace, and 
for the excellency of my splendour. By these words he does 
not dissemble how completely he looked at his own glory in 
all those buildings by which he hoped to hand down his 
name to posterity. Hence, on the whole, he wishes to be 
celebrated in the world, both during his life and after his 
death, so that God may be nothing in comparison with him- 
self, as I have already shewn how all the proud strive to 
substitute themselves in the place of God. 

It now follows,— While the speech was in the mouth of the 
king, a voice descended from heaven—They say unto thee, O 
King Nebuchadnezzar, thy kingdom has departed from thee! 
God does not now admonish the king of Babylon by either 
the mouth of a Prophet or a dream by night ; but he sends 
forth his own voice from heaven ; and as if he had not tamed 
down the pride by which the king was puffed up, a voice 
is now heard from heaven which inspires greater terror than 
either the Prophet’s oracle or interpretation. Thus God is 


ee 


o. 





CHAP. Iv. 28-32. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 289 


in the habit of dealing with the hardened and impenitent, 
since he causes his own prophets to denounce the penalty 
which hangs over them. Besides, when he sees them un- 
touched or unaffected, he doubles the terror, until the final 
execution follows, as in the case of this tyrant. The word 
was in the king's mouth when the voice was heard. We see 
how God restrains in a moment the madness of those who 
raise themselves extravagantly. But it is not surprising 
that the voice was so suddenly heard, because time for re- 
pentance was allowed to King Nebuchadnezzar. In the 
form of speech, they say to thee, it is not necessary to inquire 
anxiously to whom these words apply. Some restrict them 
to angels ; but I do not agree to this; it seems rather to be 
used in the customary way, they say—meaning “it is said,” 
as if sanctioned by common consent. Hence they say to thee, 
O King Nebuchadnezzar ; God does not simply call him by 
his name, but uses the word king—not for the sake of hon- 
our, but of ridicule, and to strike away from the king all the 
allurements by which he deceived himself. Thou indeed art 
intoxicated by thy present splendour, for while all adore 
thee, thou art forgetful of thy frailty ; but this royal majesty 
and power will not hinder God from laying thee prostrate ; 
for since thou wilt not humble thyself, thy kingdom shall be 
taken from thee! ‘This indeed appeared incredible, since 

Nebuchadnezzar had the tranquil possession of the kingdom 
in his hand; no one dared to shew himself his enemy ; he 

had subdued all his neighbours; his monarchy was terrible 

to all nations; hence God pronounces, The kingdom has 

passed away from thee! And this shews the certainty of 

the oracle ; and thus Nebuchadnezzar may know the time to 

be fulfilled, and the punishment to be no longer delayed, 
| because he had trified with God’s indulgence. 

It follows,—They shall expel thee from among men, and 
thy habitation shall be with the beasts of the field—or of the 
country,—they shall make thee eat grass like oxen! Some 
think Nebuchadnezzar to have been changed into a beast ; 
but this is too harsh and absurd. We need not fancy any 
change of nature; but he was cut off from all intercourse 
with men, and with the exception of a human form, he did 

VOL. I. T 








) 





290 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXI. 


not differ from the brutes,—nay, such was his deformity in 
his exile that, as we shall afterwards see, he became a horrid 
spectacle ;—all the hairs of his body stood up and grew like 
eagles’ feathers ; his claws were like those of birds.. In 
these points he was like the beasts, in others like the rest of 
mankind. It is uncertain whether God struck this king with 
madness, causing him to escape and lie hid for a length of 
time, or whether he was cast forth by a tumult and conspir- 
acy of nobles, or even the consent of the whole people. All 
this is doubtful, since the history of those times is unknown 
tous. Whether, then, Nebuchadnezzar was snatched away 
by madness, and while he continued a maniac was separated 
from the society of men, or was cast forth as many tyrants 
have been, his dwelling with beasts for a time, becomes a 
memorable example to us. He was probably rendered stupid, 
by God’s leaving him a human form while he deprived him of 
reason, as the context will make evident tous. They shall 
cast thee out from human society ; thy dwelling shall be with 
wild beasts ; they shall make thee eat grass ike an ow! that 
is, when deprived of all delight, nay, of the commonest and 
plainest food, thou wilt find no other sustenance than that 
of oxen. Thou shalt eat the grass like an animal, and seven 
times shall pass over thee. Of the “seven times” we have 
spoken before. Some restrict this to days, but this is con- 
trary not only to every reason, but to every pretext. Nor do 
I explain it of months ; the space of time would have been 
much too short. Hence the opinion of those who extend it 
to seven years is more probable. If Nebuchadnezzar had 
been cast out by a tumult, he would not have been so quickly 
recalled: then, since God wished to make an example of him 
for all generations, I suppose him to have been driven out 
from common society for a length of time. Forif the penalty 
had been for seven months only, we see how coolly God’s 
judgments would be received in the world. Hence, with the 
view of engraving this penalty more deeply in the hearts of 
all, he wished to protract it longer—I will not say to seven 
years, since I have previously expounded the certain number 
as put for an uncertain one, implying a long space of time. 
Seven years, then, shall pass away, says he, until thow shalt 










_ OHAP.IV.28-32. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 291 


_ know that there is a lofty ruler in the kingdonis of men. This 
is the end of the punishment, as we have previously said, 
for I need not repeat my former remarks. But we must 
remember this—God mitigates the bitterness of the penalty 
by making it temporary. Then he proposed this end to in- 
duce N bhuchadnezzar to repent, as he required many blows 
for this purpose, according to the old proverb about the fool 
_ who can never be recalled to a sound mind without suffering 
calamity. Thus King Nebuchadnezzar ought to be beaten 
_ with stripes, to render him submissive to God, as he never 
j profited by any holy admonition or any heavenly oracle. God 
_ does not treat all in this way. Hence we have here a spe- 
pal example of his clemency, which provides for the punish- 
_ ment inflicted on King Nebuchadnezzar, being both useful 
and profitable. For the reprobate are more and more har- 
ened against God, and are ever stirred up and excited to 
madness. It was an act, then, of special grace, when 
_ Nebuchadnezzar was chastised for the time by the hand of 
- God, to cause his repentance and his owning God’s entire 
sway over the whole world. 
q He says, that God may be Lord in the kingdom of men ; 
because nothing is more difficult than to persuade tyrants 
to submit to the power of God. On the one side they con- 
fess themselves to reign by his grace; but at the same time, 
ai suppose their own sway to be obtained by either valour 
‘good fortune, and to be retained by their own guards, 
Brice, and wealth. Hence, as far as they can, they shut 
© Goa out from the government of the world, White they are 
i puffed up with a false conceit of themselves, as if all things 
were maintained in their present state by their valour or 
advice. This, then, was an ordinary effect when Nebu- 
chadnezzar began to feel God to be the ruler in the king- 
moon of men, since kings wish to place him somewhere 
_ between themselves and the multitude. They confess the 
"peor to be subject to God’s power, but think themselves 
exempt from the common order of events, and in possession 
ofa privilege in favour of their lusts, relieving them from 
7 the hand and empire of God. Hence, as I have said, it was 
2 common thing for Nebuchadnezzar to acknowlédge God 














~ oa = 











292 


LECT, XXI. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


to reign in the earth; for tyrants usually enclose God in 
heaven, and think him content with his own happiness, and 
careless about mingling in the concerns of men. Hence 
thou mayest know him to be the ruler. He afterwards adds 
the kind of dominion, because God raises up whomsoever he 
pleases, and casts down others: God is not only supreme in 
the sense of sustaining all things by his universal providence, 
but because no one without his will obtains empire at all. 
He binds some with a belt, and looseth the bonds of others, 
as it is said in the book of Job. (Chap. xii. 18.) We ought 
not, therefore, to imagine God’s power to be at rest, but we 
should join it with present action, as the phrase is. Whether 
tyrants obtain power, or sovereigns are pious and just, all are 
governed by God’s secret counsel, since otherwise there could 
be no king of the world. It follows: 


33. The same hour was the thing 
fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar; and 
he was driven from men, and did eat 
grass as oxen, and his body was wet 
with the dew of heaven, till his hairs 
were grown like eagles’ feathers, and 
his nails like birds’ claws. 


33. In illa hora sermo completus 
fuit super Nebuchadnezer, et ab 
hominibus ejectus est, et herbam 
tanquam boves comedit, et rore coe- 
lorum corpus ejus irrigatum fuit, 
donec pilus ejus quasi aquil crevit, 
et ungues ejus quasi avium, 


The Prophet concludes what he had said: As soon as the 
voice had come down from heaven, Nebuchadnezzar was cast 
out from mankind! Some occasion of expelling him might 
have preceded this; but since the divination is uncertain, 
I had rather leave undetermined what the Holy Spirit has 
not revealed. I only wished to touch upon this point shortly, 
when he boasted in the foundation of Babylon by the forti- 
tude of his own energy; since his own nobles must have 
become disgusted when they saw him carried away with 
such great pride; or he might have spoken in this way 
when he thought snares were prepared for him, or when he 
felt some crowds moved against him. Whatever be the 
meaning, God sent forth his voice, and the same moment he 
expelled King Nebuchadnezzar from the company of man- 
kind. Hence, in the same hour, says he, the speech was ful- 
filled. If along period had interposed, it might have been 
ascribed to either fortune or other inferior means, as a reason; 
but when such is the connection between the language and 





CHAP. Iv. 34. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 293 
its effect, the judgment is too clear to be obscured by the 
malignity of mankind. He says, therefore, He was cast forth 
and fed with herbs, differing in nothing from oxen: his body 
was soaked in rain, since he lay out in the open air. We 
are ourselves often subject to the drenching shower, and in 
the fields are sure to mect with it, and travellers often 
reach their inn wet through. But the Prophet speaks of 
the continuance of God’s judgment, since he had no roof to 
shelter him, and always lay out in the fields. Hence he 
says, he was moistened by the dew of heaven until, says he, 
his nails became claws, and his hair like the wings of eagles. 
This passage confirms what has been said concerning the 
explanation of the seven times as a long period, for his hair 
could not have grown so in seven months, nor could such 
great deformity arise. Hence this change, thus described 
by the Prophet, sufficiently shews King Nebuchadnezzar to 
have suffered his punishment for a length of time, for he 


could not be so quickly humbled, because pride is not easily 


tamed in a man of moderate station, how much less then in 
so great a monarch! It afterwards follows: 


34. And at the end of the days I 
Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes 
unto heaven, and mine understand- 


ing returned unto me, and I blessed 
- the most High, and I praised and 


honoured him that liveth for ever, 
whose dominion is an everlasting 
dominion, and his kingdom is from 


34. Et a fine dierum,! ego Nebu- 
chadnezer oculos meos in ccelum 
extuli, et intellectus meus ad me 
rediit, et excelsum benedixi, et 
viventem im secula laudavi et glo- 
rificavi, quia potestas ejus potestas 
seculi,? et regnum ejus cum etate et 
eetate.® 










generation to generation. 


The Prophet again introduces King Nebuchadnezzar as 
the speaker. He says, then, After that tume had elapsed, he 
raised his eyes to heaven. Without doubt, he means those 
seven years. As to his then beginning to raise his eyes to 
heaven, this shews how long it takes to cure pride, the dis- 


ease under which he laboured. For when any vital part of 


the body is corrupt and decaying, its cure is difficult and 


tedious ; so also when pride exists in men’s hearts, and gains 
an entrance within the marrow, and infects the inmost soul, 


1 That is, when the time was passed over.— Calvin. 
* That is, eternal.—Calvin. 
* That is, of perpetual duration,—Calvin. 


294. ; COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXII. 


it is not easily plucked out; and this is worthy of notice. 
Then we are taught how God by his word so operated upon 
King Nebuchadnezzar, as not immediately and openly to 
withdraw the effect of his grace. Nebuchadnezzar profited 
by being treated disgracefully during those seven years or 
times, and*by being driven from the society of mankind ; 
but he could not perceive this at once till God opened his 
eyes. So, therefore, God often chastises us, and invites us 
by degrees, and prepares us for repentance, but his grace 
is not immediately acknowledged. But lest I should be too 
prolix, I will leave the rest till to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, (since we are nothing in ourselves, and yet 
we cease not to please ourselves, and so are blinded by our vain 
confidence, and then we vainly boast in our virtues, which are 
worthless,) that we may learn to put off these perverse affections. 
May we so submit to thee as to depend upon thy mere favour: 
may we know ourselves, to stand and be sustained by thy strength 
alone: may we learn so to glorify thy name that we may not 
only obey thy word with true and pure humility, but also ear- 
nestly implore thy assistance, and distrusting ourselves, may rely 
upon thy favour as our only support, until at length thou gather- 
est us into thy heavenly kingdom, where we may enjoy that 
blessed eternity which has been obtained for us by thine only- 
begotten Son.—Amen. 


Beeture Tiventy-second. 


I sHALL now continue the comments which were inter- 
rupted yesterday. From Nebuchadnezzar saying, he raised 
his eyes to heaven, and his intellect returned to him, we 
understand him to have been for the time deprived of his 
mind. He is much astonished, in my opinion, by feeling his 
own evils, but meanwhile he bites the bit and is like a 
madman. Some think him to have been a complete maniac ; 
Ido not contend about this; it is enough for me to know 
he was deprived of his senses and was altogether like the 
brutes. But it is probable there was no intelligence remain- 














CHAP. IV. 34. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 295 


ing, to cause him to fecl torture at his slaughter. Mean- 
while, he did not raise his eyes to heaven until God drew 
him to himself. God’s chastisements do not profit us unless 
they work inwardly by his Spirit, as we said yesterday. The 
phrase only means, he began to think God to be a just 
judge. For while at the time he felt the sting of his own 
disgrace, yet as it is said elsewhere, he did not regard the 
hand of the striker. (Is. ix. 13.) He began, therefore, to 
acknowledge God to be the avenger of pride, after the afore- 
said time had elapsed. For those who cast their eyes down 
to the earth raise their eyes to heaven. As Nebuchadnezzar 
ought to awake from his stupor and rise up towards God, of 
whom he had been formerly forgetful, so he ought to pros- 
trate himself to the earth, as he had already received the 
reward of his haughtiness. He had dared to raise his head 
above the lot of man, when he assumed to himself what was 
peculiar to God. He does not raise his eyes to heaven by 
any vain confidence, as he had formerly been intoxicated by 
the splendour of his monarchy; but he looked up to God, 
while mentally cast down and prostrate. 

He afterwards adds, and I blessed him on high, and 
praised and glorified him living for ever. This change 
shews the punishment to have been chiefly and purposely 
inflicted on King Nebuchadnezzar, since he spoiled God of 
his just honour. He here describes the fruit of his repent- 
ance. If this feeling flowed from repentance, and Nebuchad- 
nezzar really blessed God, it follows that he was formerly 
sacrilegious, as he had deprived God of lawful honour and 
wished to raise himself into his place, as we have already 
said. Hence, also, we must learn what the true praise of God 
really is ; namely, when reduced to nothing, we acknowledge 
and determine all things to be according to his will; for, as 
we shall afterwards see, he is the Governor of heaven and 
earth, and we should esteem his will as the source of law 
and reason, and the final appeal of justice. For we may 
sometimes celebrate the praises of God with ostentation, but 
it will then be mere pretence ; for no one can sincerely and 
heartily praise him, without ascribing to him all the properties 
which we shall afterwards see. First of all, Nebuchadnezzar 


> ole, ee ee i dk ee i 


296 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXII. 
says, Because his power is eternal, and his kingdom from age 
to age. In the first place, he here confesses God to be an 
eternal king ; which is a great step. For human frailty is 
opposed to this perpetuity ; because the greatest monarchs, 
who excel in power, have nothing firm; they are not only 
subject to chance and change, as profane men express it— 
or rather depend upon the will of God—but they utterly 
fade away through their vanity. We see the whole world 
fluctuating like the waves of the sea. If there be any 
tranquillity, in one direction or another, yet every moment 
something new and sudden may happen, quite unexpectedly, 
As a tempest arises directly in a calm and serene sky, so 
also we see it occurin human affairs. Since it is so, no 
condition upon earth is firm, and monarchs especially dis- 
turb themselves by their own turbulent agitations, This is, 
therefore, the perpetuity which is here predicted by King 
Nebuchadnezzar ; because God as an absolute sovereign 
rules his own empire for himself, and is thus beyond all 
danger of change. This is the first point. It now follows: 


35. And all the inhabitants of the 
earth are reputed as nothing: and he 
doeth according to his will in the 
army of heaven, and among the in- 
habitants of the earth; and none 
can stay his hand, or say unto him, 
What doest thou ? 


35. Et omnes habitatores terre 
quasi nihil reputantur, et secun- 
dum voluntatem suam facit in 
exercitu ccelorum, et in habitatori- 
bus terre; et non est qui prohi- 
beat manum ejus,! et dicat ei, Quid 
fecisti ?? 


Now the opposite clause is added to complete the con- 
trast, because though it follows that nothing is firm or solid 
in mankind, yet this principle flourishes, namely, God is 
eternal ; yet few reason thus, because in words all allow God 
to be firm and everlasting, yet they do not descend into 
themselves and seriously weigh their own frailty. Thus, 
being unmindful of their own lot, they rage against God 
himself. The explanation then which occurs here is re- 
quired ; for after Nebuchadnezzar praises God, because his 
power is eternal, he adds by way of contrast, all the dwellers 
on the earth are considered as nothing. Some take mi, 
keleh, for a single word, meaning “anything complete,” for 


1 Or, wko can abolish; for NN, mecha, signifies either to blot out or 
to prohibit.—Calvin. 
* Or, why hast thou done so ?—Calvin. 








CHAP. Iv. 35. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, 297 


m3, keleh, is to “ finish,” or “complete ;” it also signifies to 
“consume” sometimes, whence they think the noun to be 
derived, because men are limited within their own standard, 
but God is immense. This is harsh; the more received 
opinion is, that 1, he, is put for N, a, here ; and thus Nebu- 
chadnezzar says, men are esteemed as of no value before God. 
Already, then, we see how suitably these two clauses agree 
together ; for God is an eternal king, and men are as nothing 
in comparison with him. For if anything is attributed to 
men as springing from themselves, it so far detracts from the 
supreme power and empire of God. It follows, then, that 
God does not entirely receive his rights, until all mortals are 
reduced to nothing. For although men make themselves of 
very great importance, yet Nebuchadnezzar here pronounces 
himself by the Spirit’s instinct, to be of no value before God ; 
for otherwise they would not attempt to raise themselves, 
unless they were utterly blind in the midst of their dark- 
ness. But when they are dragged into the light they feel 
their own nothingness and utter vanity. For whatever we 
are, this depends on God’s grace, which sustains us every 
moment, and supplies us with new vigour. Hence it is our 
duty to depend upon God only ; because as soon as he with- 
draws his hand and the virtue of his Spirit, we vanish away. 
In God we are anything he pleases, in ourselves we are 
nothing. 

It now follows: God does according to his pleasure in the 
army of the heavens, and among the dwellers upon earth. 
This may seem absurd, since God is said to act according to 
his will, as if there were no moderation, or equity, or rule 
of justice, with him. But we must bear in mind, what we 
read elsewhere concerning men being ruled by laws, since 
their will is perverse, and they are borne along in any direc- 
tion by their unruly lust ; but God is a law to himself, because 
his will is the most perfect justice. As often, then, as Scrip- 
ture sets before us the power of God, and commands us to be 
content with it, it does not attribute a tyrannical empire to 
God, according to the calumnies of the impious. But be- 
cause we do not cease to cavil against God, and oppose our 
reason to his secret counsels, and thus strive with him, as 


298 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXII. 


if he did not act justly and fairly when he does anything 
which we disapprove ; hence God pronounces all things to 
be done according to his own will, so that the Holy Spirit 
may restrain this audacity. We should remember then, 
when mention is made of God, how impossible it is for any- 
thing either perverse or unjust to belong to him; his will 
cannot be turned aside by any affection, for it is the perfec- 
tion of justice. Since this is so, we should remember how 
extremely unbridled and perverse our rashness is, while we 
dare object to anything which God does ; whence the neces- 
sity of this teaching which puts the bridle of modesty upon 
us is proved, since God does all things according to his will, 
as it is said in Psalm exv. 3, Our God in heaven does what 
he wishes. From this sentence we gather that nothing 
happens by chance, but every event in the world depends on 
God’s secret providence. We ought not to admit any distine- 
tion between God’s permission and his wish. For we see 
the Holy Spirit—the best master of language—here clearly 
expresses two things; first, what God does; and neat, what 
he does by his own will. But permission, according to tliose 
vain speculators, differs from will; as if God unwillingly 
granted what he did not wish to happen! Now, there is 
nothing more ridiculous than to ascribe this weakness to God. 
Hence the efficacy of action is added; God does what he 
wishes, says Nebuchadnezzar. He does not speak in a ear- 
nal but in a spiritual sense, or instinct, as we have said ; 
since the Prophet must be attended to just as if he had been 
sent from heaven. Now, therefore, we understand how this 
world is administered by God’s secret providence, and that 
nothing happens but what he has commanded and decreed ; 
while he ought with justice to be esteemed the Author of all 
things. 

Some object here to the apparent absurdity of saying God 
is the author of sin, if nothing is done without his will; nay, 
if he himself works it! This calumny is easily answered, 
as the method of God’s action differs materially from that 
of men. For when any man sins, God works in his own 
manner, which is very different indeed from that of man, 
since he exercises his own judgment, and thus is said to 





¥ 





CHAP. 1V.35. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. | 299 


blind and to harden. As God therefore commands both the 
reprobate and the evil one, he permits them to indulge in 
all kinds of licentiousness, and in doing so, executes his 
own judgments. But he who sins is deservedly guilty, and 
cannot implicate God as a companion of his wickedness. 
And why so? Because God has nothing in common with 
him in reference to sinfulness. Hence we see how these 
things which we may deem contrary to one another, are 
mutually accordant, since God by his own will governs all 
events in the world, and yet is not the author of sin. And 
why so? Because he treats Satan and all the wicked with 
the strict justice of a judge. We do not always see the pro- 
cess, but we must hold this principle with firmness—supreme 
power is in God’s hands; hence we must not cavil at his 
judgments, however inexplicable they may appear to us. 
Wherefore this phrase follows, There is no one who can hinder 
his hand, or can say unto him, Why dost thou act thus? 
When Nebuchadnezzar says, God’s hand cannot be hindered, 
he uses this method of deriding human folly which does not 
hesitate to rebel against God. Already they raise their 
finger to prevent, if possible, the power of his hand; and 
even when convicted of weakness, they proceed in their own 
fury. Nebuchadnezzar, then, deservedly displays their ridi- 
culous madness in conducting themselves so intemperately 
in wishing to restrain the Almighty, and to confine him 
within their bounds, and to fabricate chains for the purpose 
of restricting him. When mankind thus burst forth into 
sacrilegious fury, they deserve to be laughed at, and this is 
here the force of Daniel’s words. 

He afterwards adds, No one can say, Why dost thou act 
thus? We know how they gave way to the language of 
extreme petulance; since scarcely one man in a hundred 
restrains himself with such sobriety as to attribute the glory 
to God, and to confess himself just in his works. But Nebu- 
chadnezzar does not here consider what men are accustomed 
to do, but what they ought to do. He says therefore, and 
with striet justice, God cannot be corrected ; since however 
the reprobate chatter, their folly is self-evident, for it has 
neither reason nor the pretence of reason to support it. 


300 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXII. 


The whole sense is—God’s will is our law, against which we 
strive in vain; and then, if he permits us sufficient license, 
and our infirmity breaks forth against him, and we contend 
with him, all our efforts will be futile. God himself will be 
justified in his judgments, and thus every human counte- 
nance must submit to him. (Ps. li. 6.) This is the general 
rule. 

We must now notice the addition, God’s will must be done 
as well in the army of heaven as among the inhabitants of 
earth. By “the army of heaven” I do not understand, as 
in other places, the sun, moon, and stars, but angels and 
even demons, who may be called heavenly without absurdity, 
if we consider their origin, and their being “ princes of the 
air.’ Hence Daniel means to imply angels, demons, and 
men, to be equally governed by God’s will; and although 
the impious rush on intemperately, yet they are restrained 
by a secret bridle, and are prevented from executing what- 
ever their lusts dictate. God therefore is said to do in the 
army of the heavens and also among men whatsoever he wishes ; 
because he has the elect angels always obedient to him, and 
the devils are compelled to obey his command, although they 
strive in the contrary direction. We know how strongly the 
demons resist God, but yet they are compelled to obey him, 
not willingly, but by compulsion. But God acts among 
angels and demons just as among the inhabitants of the 
earth. He governs others by his Spirit, namely, his elect, 
who are afterwards regenerated by his Spirit, and they are 
so treated by him that his justice may truly shine forth in 
all their actions. He also acts upon the reprobate, but in 
another manner ; for he draws them headlong by means of 
the devil; he impels them with his secret virtue ; he strikes 
them by a spirit of dizziness; he blinds them and casts 
upon them a reprobate spirit, and hardens their hearts to 
contumacy. Behold how God does all things according to 
his own will among men and angels! ‘There is also another 
mode of action, as far as concerns our outward condition ; 
for God raises one aloft and depresses another. © (Ps. exiii. 7.) 
Thus we see the rich made poor, and others raised from the 
dunghill, and placed in the highest stations of honour. The 





CUAP. Iv. 36. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


301 
profane call this the sport of fortune! But the moderation 
of God’s providence is most just, although incomprehensible. 
Thus God acts according to his will among men and angels; 
but that interior action must be put in the first place, as we 


have said. It now follows: 


36. At the same time my reason 
returned unto me; and, for the 
glory of my kingdom, mine honour 
and brightness returned unto me: 
and my counsellors and my lords 
sought unto me; and I was estab- 
lished in my kingdom; and excel- 
lent majesty was added unto me. 


36. Et in tempore illo! intellec- 
tus meus rediit ad me, et ad excellen- 
tiam regni mei,? decor meus et digni- 
tas mea reversa est ad me: et me 
consiliarii mei et proceres mei re- 
quisierunt : et in regno meo confir- 
matus sum, et dignitas mea amplior 
aucta’ fuit mihi. 


Here Nebuchadnezzar explains at length what he had 
previously touched upon but shortly; for he had recovered 
his soundness of mind, and thus commends God’s mercy in 
being content with a moderate and temporary chastisement ; 
and then he stretched forth his hand, and out of a beast 
formed a man again! He was not changed into a brute, 
as we have said, but he was treated with such ignominy, and 
made like wild beasts, and pastured with them. This de- 
formity, then, was so dreadful, that his restoration might be 
called a kind of new creation. Hence with very good 
reason Nebuchadnezzar celebrates this grace of God. At 
that time, therefore, my intellect returned to me; he had 
said this once before, but since understanding and reason 
are inestimable blessings of God, Nebuchadnezzar inculcates 
this truth, and confesses himself to have experienced God’s 
singular grace, because he had returned to a sound mind. 
And at the same time he adds, he had returned to the 
honour and glory of his kingdom ; because he had been con- 
sulted again by his counsellors and elders. How this was 
accomplished is unknown, since the memory of those times 
is buried, unless the princes of his kingdom were inclined to 
clemency—which is very probable—and desired among them 
the king who had been cast out. We do not say this was 
done by them on purpose, because God made use of them, 


1 Although S21, zemena, properly is a time fixed before hand and 
determined.— Calvin. . 

2 Namely, “I returned ;” for the phrase is elliptical.— Calvin. 

& Was added.—Calvin. 


* ae 
/ 4 ne 


302 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXII. 
and they were ignorantly carrying out his purposes. They 
had heard the voice from heaven, O King Nebuchadnezzar, 
to thee it is said, thy kingdom is departed from thee! This 
indeed would be universally known and understood among 
all men; but we know how easily oblivion creeps over men 
when God speaks. These princes, then, were unaware of 
their doing God’s work when they demanded their king. 
In this way he returned to the dignity of his kingdom; and 
even additional dignity was next conferred upon him. At 
length it follows: 


37. Now I Nebuchadnezzar 37. Nune ego Nebuchadnezer 


praise, and extol, and honour the 
King of heaven, all whose works 
are ‘truth, and his ways judgment: 
and those that walk in pride he is 
able to abase. 


laudo, et extollo, et glorifico Re- 
gem ccelorum: quia omnia opera 
ejus veritas, et vie ejus judicium: 
et eos qui ambulant in tic 
potest humiliare.! 


At the close of the edict, Nebuchadnezzar joins the inge- 
nuous confession of his faults with the praises of God! What 
he says of the proud, he doubtless applies properly to him- 
self; as if he had said, God wished to constitute me a 
remarkable monument of his method of humbling the proud 
for the instruction of all mankind. For I was inflated with 
pride, and God corrected this by so remarkable a punishment, 
that my example ought to profit the world at large, Hence 
I said, King Nebuchadnezzar does not simply return thanks 
_to God, but at the same time confesses his fault, for 
though subdued with deserved harshness, yet his haughtiness 
could not be arrested by any lighter remedy. First of all he 
says, I pravse, eatol, and glorify the king of heaven! This 
heaping together of words doubtless proceeded from vehe- 
ment affection. At the same time a contrast must be 
understood, on the principle formerly mentioned ; since God 
is never rightly praised unless the ignominy of men is 
detected ; he is not properly extolled, unless their loftiness 
is cast down ; he is never glorified unless men are buried in 
shame and lie prostrate in the dust. Hence, while Nebu- 
chadnezzar here praises, extols, and glorifies God, he also 
confesses himself and all mortals to be nothing—as he did 
before—to deserve no praise but rather the utmost ignominy. 

1 That is, for humbling the proud.—Calvin. 


a 
« 
Wie 2 








OHAP. IV. 37. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 303 


He adds, since all his works are truth. Here OW), kesot, 
is taken for “rectitude or integrity.” For MON", dini- 
ameth, mean true judgments, but refer here to equity. od’s 
works are therefore all truth, that is, all integrity, as if he 
had said, none of God’s works deserve blame. Then the 
explanation follows, Ali his ways are judgments. We see 
here the praise of God’s perfect justice ; this ought to be 
referred to Nebuchadnezzar personally, as if he had said, 
God does not deal with me too strictly ; I have no reason for 
expostulating with him, or for murmuring as if he were too 
severe with me. I confess, therefore, that I deserve what- 
ever punishment I sustain. And why so? All his ways 
are justice ; meaning the highest rectitude. Then, All his 
works are truth ; thatis, nothing contrary to equity is found 
there, nothing crooked, but everywhere the highest justice 
will shine forth. We see then how Nebuchadnezzar by this 
language condemns himself out of his own mouth by declar- 
ing God’s justice to be in all his works. This general form 
of expression does not prevent Nebuchadnezzar from openly 
and freely confessing himself a criminal before God’s tribu- 
nal; but it acquires greater force by his example, which 
admonishes us by the general confession of God’s justice, 
rectitude, and truthfulness in whatever he does. And this 
is worthy of notice, since many find no difficulty in celebrat- 
ing God’s justice and rectitude when they are treated just 
as they like; but if God begins to treat them with severity, 
they then vomit forth their poison, and begin to quarrel 
with God, and to accuse him of injustice and cruelty. Since 
therefore Nebuchadnezzar here confesses God to be just and 
true in all his works, without any exception, notwithstanding 
his own severe chastisements, this confession is not feigned ; 
for he necessarily utters what he says from the lowest depths 
of his heart, through his having experienced the rigour of 
the divine judgment. 

He now adds at last, He can humble those who walk ‘in 
pride. Were Nebuchadnezzar more openly displays his own 
disgrace, for he is not ashamed to confess his fault before the 
whole world, because his punishment was known to every one. 
As God then wished his folly to be universally detested, by 


ae 





304 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXII. 


making so horrible an example of him by his punishment, so 
Nebuchadnezzar now brings his own case forward, and bears 
witness to the justice of the penalty, in consequence of his 
extreme pride. Here then we see God’s power joined with 
his justice, as we have previously mentioned. He does not 
attribute to God a tyranny free from all law ; for as soon as 
Nebuchadnezzar had confessed all God’s ways to be just, he 
condemns himself of pride directly afterwards. Hence he 
does not hesitate to expose his disgrace before mankind, 
that God may be glorified. And this is the true method of 
praising God, not only by confessing ourselves to be as 
nothing, but also by looking back upon our failings. We 
ought not only to acknowledge ourselves inwardly guilty 
before him, but also openly to testify the same before all 
mankind whenever it is necessary. And when he uses the 
word “ humility,” this may be referred to outward dejection ; 
for Nebuchadnezzar was humbled when God cast him out 
into the woods to pass his life in company with the wild 
beasts. But he was also humbled for another reason, as if 
he had been a son of God. Since this humbling is twofold, 
Nebuchadnezzar wishes here to express the former kind, 
because God prostrates and throws down the proud. This 
is one kind of humiliation ; but it becomes profitless unless 
God afterwards governs us by a spirit of submission. Hence 
Nebuchadnezzar does not here embrace the grace of God, 
which was worthy of no common praise and exaltation ; and 
in this edict he does not describe what is required of a pious 
man long trained in God’s school; yet he shews how he had 
profited under God’s rod, by attributing to him the height 
of power. Besides this, he adds the praise of justice and 
rectitude, while he confesses himself guilty, and bears wit- 
ness to the justice of the punishment which had been 
divinely inflicted on him. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since the disease of pride remains fixed in us 
all through our original corruption in our father Adam,—Grant, I 
say, that we may learn to mortify our spirits, and to be dis- 
pleased with our conduct, as we ought; may we feel ourselves 








CHAP. V. l. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 305 


to be deprived of all wisdom and rectitude without thee alone. 
May we fly to thy pity, and confess ourselves utterly subject to 
eternal death; may we rely on thy goodness which thou hast 
deigned to offer us through thy Gospel; may we trust in that Medi- 
ator whom thou hast given us; may we never hesitate to fly to thee, 
to call upon thee as our Father, and having been renewed by thy 
Spirit, may we walk in true humility and modesty, till at length 
thou shalt raise us to that heavenly kingdom which has been ob- 
tained for us by the blood of thine only-begotten Son.—Amen. 


Lecture Twenty-third. 
CHAPTER FIFTH. 


1. Belshazzar the king made a 1. Beltsazar rex fecit conviviym 
great feast to a thousand of his lords, magnum proceribus suis mille, et 
and drank wine before the thousand. coram mille vinum bibit. 


Dantez here refers to the history of what happened at the 
taking of Babylon; but meanwhile he leaves those judgments 
of God to the consideration of his readers, which the Prophets 
had predicted before the people had become exiles. He does 
not use the prophetic style, as we shall afterwards see, but is 
content with simple narrative ; while the practice of history 
may be learnt from the following expressions. It is our duty 
now to consider how this history tends towards building us 
up in the faith and fear of God. First of all we notice the 
time at which Belshazzar celebrated this banquet. Seventy 
years had passed away from the time when Daniel had been 
led into exile with his companions. For although Nebuchad- 
nezzar will soon be called the father of Belshazzar, yet it is 
clear enough that Evil-Merodach lived between them ; for 
he reigned twenty-three years. Some reckon two kings be- 
fore Belshazzar ; for they place Regassar after Labassar- 
ach ; and these two will occupy eight years. Metasthenes 
has stated it so, and he has many followers. But Nebuchad- 
nezzar the Great, who took Daniel captive, and was the son 
of the first king of that name, evidently reigned forty-five 
years. Some transfer two years to the reign of his father ; 
at any rate, he held the regal power for forty-five years ; and 
if the twenty-three years of Evil-Merodach are added, they 

VOL. I. U 


306 COMMENTARIES ON DANTEL. LECT, XXIII. 


will make sixty-eight years—in which Belshazzar had reigned 

eight years. We see, then, how seventy-two years had 

passed away from the period of Daniel being first led captive. 

Metasthenes reckons thirty years for the reign of Evil-Mero- 

dach ; and then, if we add eight years, this makes more than 

eighty years—which appears probable enough, although Me- 

tasthenes seems to be in error in supposing different kings 

instead of only different names." For Herodotus does not 

call Belshazzar, of whom we are now speaking, a king, but 

ealls his father Labynetus, and gives him the same name.” 

Metasthenes makes some mistakes in names, but I readily 

embrace his computation of time, when he asserts Evil-Me- 

rodach to have reigned thirty years. For when we treat of 
the seventy years which Jeremiah had formerly pointed out, 

we ought not to begin with Daniel’s exile, nor yet with the 

destruction of the city, but with the slaughter which occurred 
between the first victory of king Nebuchadnezzar, and the 
burning and ruin of the temple and city. For when the 

report concerning the death of his father was first spread 

abroad, as we have elsewhere said, he returned to his own 

country, lest any disturbance should occur through his ab- 
sence. Hence we shall find the seventy years during which 

God wished the people’s captivity to last, will require a 

longer period for the reign of Evil-Merodach than twenty- 

three years; although there is not any important difference, 

for soon after Nebuchadnezzar returned, he carried off the 
king, leaving the city untouched. Although the temple was 

then standing, yet God had inflicted the severest punishment 

upon the people, which was like a final slaughter, or at least 

nearly equal to it. However this was, we see that Belshazzar 
was celebrating this banquet just as the time of the deliver- 

ance drew nigh. 

Here we must consider the Providence of God, in arrang- 
ing the times of events, so that the impious, when the time 
of their destruction is come, cast themselves headlong of their 
own accord. This occurred to this wicked king. Wonderful 


1 See the DisserTATIONS at the end of this volume, in which these his- 
torical points are treated at length. 
* Herod., lib. i. sect. 188: Comp. Cyropeed., lib. iv. and vii. 





CHAP. V. 1. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 307 


indeed was the stupidity which prepared a splendid banquet 
filled with delicacies, while the city was besieged. For Cyrus 
had begun to besiege the city for a long time with a large 
army. ‘The wretched king was already half a captive; and 
yet, as if in spite of God, he provided a rich banquet, and 
invited a thousand guests. Hence we may conjecture the 
extent of the noise and of the expense in that banquet. For 
if any one wishes to entertain only ten or twenty guests, it 
will occasion him much trouble, if he wishes to treat them 
splendidly. But when it was a royal entertainment, where 
there were a thousand nobles with the king’s wife and con- 
cubines, and so great a multitude assembled together, it — 
became necessary to obtain from many quarters what was 
required for such a festival ; and this may seem incredible! 
But Xenophon though he related many fables and preserved 
neither the gravity nor the fidelity of a historian, because he 
desired to celebrate the praises of Cyrus like a rhetorician ; 
although he trifles in many things, yet here had no reason 
or occasion for deception. He says a treasure was laid up, 
so that the Babylonians could endure a siege of even ten or 
more years. And Babylon was deservedly compared to a 
kingdom ; for its magnitude was so large as to surpass be- 
lief. It must really have been very populous, but since they 
drew their provisions from the whole of Asia, it is not sur- 
prising that the Babylonians had food in store, sufficient to 
allow them to close their gates, and to sustain them fora 
long period. But in this banquet it was most singular that 
the king, who ought to have been on guard, or at least have 
sent forth his guards to prevent the city from being taken, 
was as intent upon his delicacies as if he had been in perfect 
peace, and exposed to no danger from any outward enemy. 
He had a contest with a strong man, if any man ever was 
so. Cyrus was endued with singular prudence, and in swift- 
‘ness of action by far excelled all others. Since, then, the 
_ king was so keenly opposed, it: is surprising to find him so 
careless as to celebrate a banquet. Xenophon, indeed, states 

_ the day to have been a festival. The assertion of those Jews 
who think the Chaldeans had just obtained a victory over 
_ the Persians, is but trifling. For Xenophon—who may be 








308 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXIII 


trusted whenever he does not falsify history: in favour of 
Cyrus, because he is then a very grave historian, and en- 
tirely worthy of credit ; but when he desires to praise Cyrus, 
he has no moderation—is here historically correct, when he 
says the Babylonians were holding a usual annual festival. 
He tells us also how Babylon was taken, viz., by Gobryas and 
Gadatas his generals. For Belshazzar had castrated one of 
these to his shame, and had slain the son of the other in 
the lifetime of his father. Since then the latter burnt with 
the desire of avenging his son’s death, and the former his 
own disgrace, they conspired against him. Hence Cyrus 
turned the many channels of the Euphrates, and thus Babylon 
was suddenly taken. The city we must remember was twice 
taken, otherwise there would not have been any confidence 
in prophecy ; because when the Prophets threaten God’s 
vengeance upon the Babylonians, they say their enemies 
should be most fierce, not seeking gold or silver, but desiring 
human blood ;, and then they narrate every kind of atrocious 
deed which is customary in war. (Jer. 1.42.) But nothing 
of this kind happened when Babylon was taken by Cyrus ; 
but when the Babylonians freed themselves from the Persian 
sway by casting off their yoke, Darius recovered the city by 
the assistance of Zopyrus, who mutilated his person, and 
pretended to have suffered such cruelty from the king as to 
induce him to betray the city. But then we collect how 
hardly the Babylonians were afflicted, when 3000 nobles 


were crucified! And what usually happens when 8000 


nobles are put to death, and all suspended on a gallows— 
nay, even crucified? Thus it easily appears, how severely 
the Babylonians were punished at the time, although they 
were then subject to a foreign power, and treated shamefully 
by the Persians, and reduced to the condition of slaves. For 
they were forbidden the use of arms, and were taught from 
the first to become the slaves of Cyrus, and dare not wear a 
sword. We ought to touch upon these things shortly to 
assure us of the government of human events by the judg- 
ment of God, when he casts headlong the reprobate when 
their punishment is at hand. We have an illustrious ex- 
ample of this in King Belshazzar. 








a te ale 


CHAP. V 1. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 309 


The time of the deliverance predicted by Jeremiah was at 
hand—the seventy years were finished—Babylon was _ be- 
sieged. (Jer, xxv. 11.) The Jews might now raise up their 
heads and hope for the best, because the arrival of Cyrus 
approached, contrary to the opinion of them all; for he had 
suddenly rushed down from the mountains of Persia when 
that was a barbarous. nation. Since, therefore, the sudden 
coming of Cyrus was like a whirlwind, this change might 
possibly give some hope to the Jews; but after a length of 
time, so to speak, had elapsed in the siege of the city, this 
might cast down their spirits. While king Belshazzar was 
banqueting with his nobles, Cyrus seems able to thrust him 
out in the midst of his merriment and hilarity. Meanwhile 
the Lord did not sit at rest in heaven; for he blinds the 
mind of the impious king, so that he should willingly incur 
punishments, yet no one drew him on, for he incurred it 
himself. And whence could this arise, unless God had given 
him up to his enemy? It was according to that decree of 
which Jeremiah was the herald. Hence, although Daniel 
narrates the history, it is our duty, as I have said, to treat 
of things far more important ; for God who had promised 
his people deliverance, was now stretching forth his hand in 
secret, and fulfilling the predictions of his Prophets. (Jer. 
xxv. 26.) 

It now follows—King Belshazzar was drinking wine before 
a thousand. Some of the Rabbis say, “he strove with his 
thousand nobles, and contended with them all in drinking 
to excess ;” but this seems grossly ridiculous. When he says, 
he drank wine before a thousand, he alludes to the custom of 
the nation, for the kings of the Chaldeans very rarely invited 
guests to their table; they usually dined alone, as the kings 
of Europe now do; for they think it adds to their dignity 
to enjoy a solitary meal. The pride of the kings of Chaldea 
was of this kind. When, therefore, it is said, Belshazzar 
drank wine before a thousand, something extraordinary is 
intended, since he was celebrating this annual banquet con- 
trary to his ordinary custom, and he deigned to treat his 
nobles with such honour as to receive them as his guests. 
Some, indeed, conjecture that he drank wine openly, as he 


310 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXIII. 
was accustomed to become intoxicated when there were no 
witnesses present ; but there is no force in this comment: 


the word before means in the presence or society of others. 


Let us go on: 


2. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted 
the wine, commanded to bring the 
golden and silver vessels which his 
father Nebuchadnezzar had taken 
out of the temple which was in Jeru- 


2. Beltsazar precepit' in gustu, 
vel, sapore, vini, ut afferrent vasa 
auri et argenti,’ que asportaverat, 
vel, extulerat, Nebuchadnezer pater 
ejus ex templo quod est in Jerusa- 


salem; that the king and his prinees, 
his wives and his concubines, might 


ceres ejus, uxores et concubine.é 
drink therein. 


Here king Belshazzar courts his own punishment, because 
he furiously stirred up God’s wrath against himself, as if he 
was dissatisfied with its delay while God put off his judgment 
for so long a period. ‘This is according to what I have said. 

- When the destruction of a house is at hand, the impious re- 
move the posts and gates, as Solomon says. (Proy. xvii. 19.) 
God therefore, when he wishes to execute his judgments, im- 
pels the reprobrate by a secret instinct to rush forward of 
their own accord, and to hasten their own destruction. Bel- 
shazzar did this. His carelessness was the sign of his stu- 
pidity, and also of God’s wrath, when in the midst of his own 
pride and crimes he could delight in revelling. Thus his 
blindness more clearly points out God’s vengeance, since he 
was not content with his own intemperance and excesses, 
(but must openly declare war against God. He ordered, 

' therefore, says he, the gold and silver vessels to be brought to 
him which he had taken away from Nebuchadnezzar. ‘These 
vessels appear to have been laid up in the treasury ; hence 
Nebuchadnezzar had never abused these vessels.in his life- 
time; we do not read that Evil-Merodach did anything of 
this kind, and Belshazzar now wishes purposely to inflict 
this insult on God. There is no doubt he brought forth 
those vessels by way of ridicule, for the purpose of triumph- 
ing over the true God, as we shall afterwards sce. 


1 Verbally it means said, but here it signifies commanded.—Calvin. 

* Made of gold and silver.— Calvin. 

* Some translate his wife, since there was one principal wife, who alone 
was the king’s companion, and she received the name of Queen, as we shall 
afterwards see.—Calvin. 


lem, ut biberent in illis rex, et pro-_ 





Pia! | 


| 





CHAP. V. 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. Olt 


We have already explained the sense in which the Pro- 
phet calls Nebuchadnezzar the father of Belshazzar, since it 
is usual in all languages to speak of ancestors as fathers ; 
for Belshazzar was of the offspring of Nebuchadnezzar, and 
being really his grandson, he is naturally called his son ; 
and this will occur again. There are some who think Evil- 
Merodach was stricken with that grievous affliction mentioned 
in the last chapter: possibly his name was Nebuchadnezzar, 
but there is no reason for adopting their opinion ;* it is 
frivolous to fly directly to this conjecture when the name of the 
father occurs. ‘The Prophet says Belshazzar committed this 
under the influence of wine. Since E2YV, tegnem, signifies 
“to taste,” no doubt he here speaks of tasting ; and since 
this may be metaphorically transferred to the understanding, 


‘some explain it to mean being impelled by wine, and thus 


his drunkenness took the place of reason and judgment. 
Nights and love and wine, says Ovid, have no moderation in 
them.’ This explanation I think too forced ; it seems simply 
to mean, when Belshazzar grew warm with wine, he com- . 
manded the vessels to be brought to him; and this is the 
more usual view. When, therefore, the savour of the wine 
prevailed,—that is, when it seized upon the king’s sensés, 
then he ordered the vessels to be brought. It is worth while 
to notice this, to induce us to be cautious concerning intem- 
perance in drinking, because nothing is more common than 
the undertaking many things far too rashly when our senses 
are under the influence of wine. Hence we must use wine 
soberly, that it may invigorate not only the body but the 
mind and the senses, and may never weaken, or enervate, or 
stupify our bodily or mental powers. And this is, alas! too 
eommon, since the vulgar proverb is well known—pride 
springs from drunkenness. For this reason the poets sup- 
posed Bacchus to have horns, since intemperate men are 


1 This is the view of the Duke of Manchester; it is ably supported in 
his learned volume on “The Times of Daniel.” As we have had occasion 
to review the genera] argument elsewhere, we merely allude to it here — 
See DIssERTATIONS. 

2 Ars. Amor., Eleg. vi. » The French translation is worthy of notice,— 

“ Ta nuiet, Pamour, le boire sans mesure, 
N’ induit a rien sinon a toute ordure.”— Fd. 


312 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXIII. 


always puffed up, and the most wretched fancy themselves 
kings. What then must happen to monarchs, when in their 
forgetfulness they dream themselves kings of kings, and even 
deities? The Prophet wishes to mark this fault when he 
says, Belshazzar, under the influence of wine, ordered vessels 
to be brought to him. It now follows,— 

3. Then they brought the golden ves- 3. Tunc attulerunt vasa au- 
sels that were taken out of the temple rea que extulerant ex templo 
of the house of God which was at domus Dei que erat in Jerusa- 
Jerusalem ; and the king and his princes, Jem: et biberunt in illis rex, 


his wives and his concubines, drank in et proceres ejus, et uxor,' et con- 
them. cubine ipsius. 


The Prophet uses the word “ golden,” probably, because 
the most precious vessels were brought; silver might also 
have been added, but the more splendid ones are noticed. 
He does not say that Nebuchadnezzar carried them off, but 
implies it to be the common act of all the Babylonians. 
They obtained the victory under the direction of this king, 
hence he used the spoils; and since they were all engaged 
in the victory, the Prophet speaks of them all. In using the 
phrase, “the temple,” he expresses more than before, by 
saying, not from Jerusalem only but from the temple of God’s 
house. 


4. They drank wine, and praised 4. Biberunt vinum, et laudarunt 
the gods of gold, and of silver, of deos aureos, et argenteos, zreos, fer- 
brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. reos, ligneos, et lapideos. 


Here the Prophet. shews more distinctly and clearly how 
the king insulted the true and only God, by ordering his 
vessels to be brought to him. For when they had been 
brought forth, they praised, says he, all their gods of gold and 
silver ; meaning in defiance of the true God they celebrated 
the praises of their false deities, and thanked them, as we 
find in Habakkuk. (Ch. i. 16.) Although there is no doubt 
they sacrificed heartily the produce of their industry, as the 
Prophet there expresses it, yet they exalted their own gods, 
and thus obliterated the glory of the true God. And this is 
the reason why the Prophet now takes pains to state those 
vessels to have been brought from the temple of God’s house. 
For he here strengthens the impiety of the king and his 


? Or, “ wives,” in the plural number.— Calvin. 





OHAP. V. 4, COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 313 


nobles for erecting their horns against the God of Israel. 
There is then a great contrast between God who commanded 
his temple to be built at Jerusalem, and sacrifices to be 
offered to him and false gods. And this was the head and 
front of Belshazzar’s offending, because he thus purposely 
rose up against God, and not only tyrannically and miserably 
oppressed the Jews, but triumphed over their God—the 
Creator of heaven and earth. This madness accelerated his 
ultimate destruction, and it occurred for the purpose of 
hastening the time of their deliverance. Hence I have re- 
presented him to have been drawn by God’s great instinct 
to such madness that vengeance might be ripened. 

They drank, says he, wine, and praised their gods. The 
Prophet does not ascribe the praise of their gods to drunken- 
ness, but he obliquely shews their petulance to have been 
increased by drink. For if each had been sober at home, he 
would not have thus rashly risen up against God; but when 
impiety exists in the heart, intemperance becomes an addi- 
tional stimulus. The Prophet seems to me to mean this, 
when he repeats, they were drinking ; for he had said, the 
king and his nobles, his wife, and concubines, were drinking. 
He now inculcates the same thing in similar words, but 
adds, they drank wine,—meaning their madness was the 
more inflamed by the excitement of the wine. Then they 
praised the gods of silver, &e. The Prophet here reproach- 
fully mentions gods of gold, silver, brass, wood, and stone, 
since we know God to have nothing in common with either 
gold or silver. His true image cannot be expressed in cor- 
‘ruptible materials ; and this is the reason why the Prophet 
calls all the gods which the Babylonians worshipped, golden, 
silver, brazen, wooden, and stone. Clearly enough the heathen 
never were so foolish as to suppose the essence of Deity to 
reside in gold, or silver, or stone; they only called them 
images of their deities; but because in their opinion the . 
power and majesty of the deity was included within the 
material substance, the Prophet is right in so completely 
condemning their criminality, because we hear how carefully 
idolaters invent every kind of subtlety. In the present 
times, the Papacy is a glaring proof how men cling to gross 





314 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, LECT. XXIII, 


superstitions when they desire to excuse their errors ; hence 
the Prophet does not here admit those vain pretences by 
which the Babylonians and other heathens disguise their 
baseness, but he says, their gods were of silver and gold. 
And why so? for although they orally confessed that gods 
reign in heaven, (so great was the multitude and crowd of 


their deities that the supreme God was quite shrouded in — 


darkness,) although therefore the Babylonians confessed 
their gods to have dwelt in heaven, yet they fled to statues 
and pictures. Hence the Prophet deservedly chides them 
for adoring gods of gold and silver. As to his saying, then 
the vessels were brought, it shews how the slaves of tyrants 
obey them in the worst actions, because no delay intervened 
in bringing the vessels from the treasury. Daniel there- 
fore signifies how all the king’s servants were obedient to 
his nod, and desirous of pleasing a person brutish and 
drunken; at the same time he shews the shortness of that 
intemperate intoxication ; for he says,— 

5. In the same hour came forth fin- 5. In illa hora egressi sunt 
gers of a man’s hand, and wrote over digiti manus hominis, et seribe- 
against the candlestick upon the plas-  bant e regione lucernee! super 
ter of the wall of the king’s palace; and calcein parietis? palatii regis, et 


the king saw the part of the hand that rex cernebat palmam* manus 
wrote. . scribentis. 


Here Daniel begins his narration of the change which 
took place, for at that instant the king acknowledged some- 
thing sorrowful and disturbing to be at hand. Yet, as he 
did not at once understand what it was, God gave hima 
sign as an omen of calamity, according to the language of 
the profane. In this way God sent him warning when he 
saw the king and his nobles raging with mad licentiousness. 
There appeared, then, the hand of a man, says the Prophet, 
using this expression from its similitude and form. We are 
sure it was not a man’s hand; it had the appearance of one, 
* and hence was called so. Scripture often uses this method 
of expression, especially when treating external symbols. 


1 Or, “candlestick ;” some explain it, “ window.”—Calvin. 
“ Some consider it the surface, others the roof, which is probable.— 
Calvi 
‘alvin. 
_ *® Others translate it “ finger.”—-Calvm. 





CHAP. V. 5. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 315 


This is, then, a sacramental form of speech,' if I may use 
the expression. God, indeed, wrote the inscription by his 
own power, but he shews King Belshazzar the figure as if a 
man had written it on the wall ; hence the fingers of a hand 
were put forth. This expression conduces in no slight degree 
to the reality of the miracle ; for if Belshazzar had seen this 
on the wall from the very first, he might have supposed 
some artifice had placed the hand there ; but when the wall 
‘was previously bare, and then the hand suddenly appeared, 
we may readily understand the hand to have been a sign 
from heaven, through which God wished to shew something 
important to the king. The fingers of a hand, then, were put 
forth, and wrote from the midst of the candlestick, or lamp. 
Clearly, then, this was a feast by night, and Babylon was 
taken in the midst of the night. No wonder their banquets 
were protracted to a great length, for intemperance has no 
bounds. When men are accustomed to spend the day in 
luxury, I confess indeed they do not usually continue their 
banquets till midnight; but when they celebrate any splendid 
and remarkable feast, they do not find the daylight sufficient 
for. their festivites and the grosser indulgences of the table. 
Hence the hand appeared from the candlesticks to render it 
the more conspicuous. That hand, says the Prophet, wrote 
on the surface of the palace wall. If any one had announced 
to the king this appearance of a human hand, he might have 
doubted it ; but he says the king was an eye-witness, for God 
wished to terrify him, as we shall afterwards see, and hence he 
set before him this spectacle. The king, then, perceived it ; 
perhaps his nobles did not ; and we shall afterwards see how 
the terror operated upon the king alone, unless, indeed, some 
others trembled with him. When, therefore, they saw his 
countenance changed and exhibiting proofs of terror, they be- 
gan to fear, although they were all desirous of affording him 
some consolation. Hence God wished to summon this impi- 
ous king to His tribunal when the hand of a man appeared 
before him in the act of writing. We shall see what it wrote 
in its proper place. | 
1 This phrase is worthy of notice. The Latin is “ sacramentalis locutio ;” 


the French, “est aussi sacramentale.” See our Ezekiel, vol. it., p. 312 and 
note, where the Sabbath is termed a Sacrament. 





f 


316 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT, XXIV. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we are so prone to forgetfulness and 
to our own indulgence in the desires and pleasures of the flesh,— 
Grant, I say, to each of us to be recalled to the contemplation 
of thy judgments; and may we be anxious to walk as in thy 
sight. May we be afraid of thy just vengeance, be careful not 
to provoke it by our petulance and other vices; but may we 
submit ourselves to thee, be held up, and propped up by thy 
hands, and proceed in the sacred course of thy calling, until at 
length thou shalt raise us to thy heavenly kingdom, which has 
been acquired for us by the blood of thine only-begotten Son.— 
Amen. 


Lecture Twenty-fourth. 


6. Then the king’s countenance 6. Tune Regis vultus! mutatus 
was changed, and his thoughts est: et cogitationes ejus terruerunt 
troubled him, so that the joints of eum, et ligamina lumborum ejus 
his loins were loosed, and his knees solvebantur,? et poplites ejus invicem 
smote one against another. collisi sunt. 


Here Daniel shews how the king’s mind was struck with 
fear, lest any one should think his fright without foundation. 
But he expresses, by many circumstances, how disturbed the 
king was, and thus the sufficiency of the reason would easily 
appear. It was needful for him to be so struck, that all 
might understand how God was seated on his throne, and 
summoned him as a criminal. We mentioned before how 
Daniel impresses us with the pride of this king, and his 
careless security is a clear proof of it. When the daily siege 
of the city ought to have rendered him anxious, he was cele- 
brating his usual banquets, as if in profound peace. Whence 
he appears to be corrupted by a kind of spiritual drunken- 
ness, so as not to feel his own calamities. This, then, is the 
reason why God roused him up and awakened him from his 
lethargy, because no ordinary means were effectual in re- 
calling him to soundness of mind. The fear which he expe- 
rienced might seem a convenient preparation for penitence. 


1 «The form or figure,” verbally.— Calvin. 
2 « His hip-joints,” for the Hebrews and Chaldees use roundabout ex- 
pressions.—-Calvin. 


_— 
a 
Cad 


CHAP. V. 6. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 317 


But we see the same thing in this case as we do in that of 
Esau ; for he was not only touched with contrition when he 
saw himself cut off, but he uttered a loud and piercing lamen- 
tation when seeking his father’s “blessing,” and yet he was 
too late. (Gen. xxvii. 34.) A similar occurrence is related 
here of King Belshazzar, but we must remark upon every- 
thing in order. Daniel says, The king’s countenance was 
changed ; then, the joints of his limbs were loosened, and he 
was disturbed, or frightened, in his thoughts; and lastly, he 
adds, his knees smote together. The word properly signifies, 
to strike one against another. By these signs the Prophet 
shews how King Belshazzar was frightened by the vision 
already mentioned. Without doubt, as I have just said, 
God inspired him with this terror, for we know even when 
God has openly ascended to his own tribunal, how stupid 
the reprobate remain, and how immovable! But God wished 
to affect the mind of this impious king, and to render his 
ignorance without excuse. 

Here we may remark, generally, in how many ways God 
touches men’s hearts—not those of the reprobate only, but 
also of his elect, for we see even the best men slow and 
slothful when God summons them to his judgment-seat. It 
becomes necessary to chastise them with rods, otherwise they 
never approach God of their own accord. He might, indeed, 
move their minds without violence; but he wishes to set 
before us, as in a glass, our slowness and slothfulness, since 
we do not obey his word with natural willingness. Hence 
he tames his children with cords when they will not profit 
by his word. With regard to the reprobate, he often chides 
their obstinacy, because, before he undertakes the office of 
judge, he kindly entices them; when they do not profit by 
this, he threatens; and when his threats are useless and 
devoid of efficacy, he then calls them to his tribunal. Re- 
specting the fate of the King of Babylon, God had suffered 
Daniel to be silent, for his ingratitude and pride had closed 
the door, so as to prevent Daniel from undertaking the office 
of a teacher as he was prepared to do; hence the King of 
Babylon continued without one. But God suddenly appeared 
as a judge, by the writing of which we have shortly spoken, 





318 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXIV, 
and of which we shall say more in the proper place.. Whatever 
its meaning may be, we see King Belshazzar not only ad- 
monished by an outward sign of his approaching death, but 
inwardly stirred up to acknowledge himself to be dealing 
with God. For the reprobate often enjoy their own plea- 
sures, as I have said, although God shews himself to be their 
judge. But he treats King Belshazzar differently: he desires 
to inspire him with terror, to render him more attentive 
to the perusal of the writing. This time was, as I have said, 
a preparation for repentance ; but he failed in the midst of 
his course, as we see too many do who tremble at the voice 
of God and at the signs of his vengeance, as soon as he ad- 
monishes them ; but these feelings are but evanescent; thus 
proving how little they have learnt of the necessary lesson. 

The example of Esau is similar to this, since he despised 
God’s grace when he heard himself deprived of the inherit- 
ance divinely promised him. (Gen. xxv. 33.) He treated 
the blessing as a fable till he found it a serious matter; he 
then began to lament, but all in vain. Such also was the 
fright of King Belshazzar, as we shall soon perceive. Even 
when Daniel explained the writing to him, he was by no 
means moved by it, but adorned Daniel with royal tokens of 
regard. Yet the object and use of this was totally different, 
for when the nobles were moved, and the reality became 
manifest, God in this way demonstrated his glory: and 
Darius, who took the city, with his son-in-law Cyrus, under- 
stood how his own valour and perseverance were not the 
sole cause of his victory, and how the satraps, Gobryas and 
Gadata, would not have assisted him so materially unless 
the whole affair had been under God’s auspices. Thus God 
shewed himself as in a glass to be the avenger of his people, 
as he had promised seventy years previously. It now fol- 
lows :— 


7. The king cried aloud to bring 
in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, 
and the soothsayers. And the king 
spake, and said to the wise men of 
Babylon, Whosoever shall read this 
writing, and shew me the interpre- 
tation thereof, shall be clothed with 


. 7. Clamavit rex fortiter, ut in- 
troducerentur magi, Chaldzi, et as- 
trologi,’ et loquutus est rex, et 
dixit sapientibus Babylonis, Quis- 
quis legerit scripturam hane, et in- 
terpretationem ejus indicaverit mihi, 
purpura vestietur, et torques ex 


1 ‘We have previously explained these words.—Calvin. 





CHAP. V. 7. , COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 319 


scarlet, and have a chain of gold auro, hoe est, awreus, super collum 
about his neck, and shall be the third ejus, et tertius in regno domina- 
ruler in the kingdom. bitur. 


The Prophet narrates how King Belshazzar sought a 

remedy for his anxiety ; hence we gather how his mind was 
so immediately wounded, and how he felt he could not 
escape God's hand, otherwise he would not have called the 
wise men so suddenly in the midst of the banquet. Again, 
when the Prophet says, He cried out loudly, he was clearly 
so astonished as to forget his being king, for to cry out at 
table was not consistent with his dignity. But God expelled 
all pride from him, by compelling him to burst forth into a 
ery, like a man completely beside himself. We must now 
consider the remedy to which he resorted: he ordered the 
Chaldeans, and magi, and astrologers to be called. We learn 
from this how exceedingly prone men are to vanity, lying, and 
falsehood. Daniel ought to have been first, even among the 
Chaldeans, for that was an answer worthy of remembrance 
which he had given to the grandfather of this king, when 
he predicted his becoming like the beasts of the forest. 
Since this prophecy was verified by the event, his authority 
ought to have flourished even to a thousand years. He was 
daily in the king’s sight, and yet he was neglected, while the 
king sent for all the Chaldeans, and astrologers, and diviners, 
and magi. ‘Truly enough, these men were then in so great 
repute that they deservedly obscured the fame of Daniel, for 
they were indignant at a captive being preferred to native 
teachers, when they knew their own glory amongst all peoples 
depended upon the persuasion of their being the only wise 
men. As, therefore, they wished to retain their good opi- 
nion, as being God’s counsellors, no wonder they despised 
this stranger. But this feeling cannot avail for a moment 
before God: for what can be urged in defence of the king’s 
impiety? His grandfather was a memorable instance of 
God’s vengeance, when rejected from the company of men, 
and compelled to dwell among the wildest beasts of the 
forest. This, truly, could not appear a matter of chance. 
God, then, had first admonished him by a dream, and next 
sent his own Prophet as the interpreter of the oracle and the 





320 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXIV. 


vision. As I have said, the fame of this event ought to 
have been perpetual among the Chaldeans, yet the grandson 
of King Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his example, insulted 
the God of Israel, profaned the vessels of the temple, and 
triumphed with his idols! When God sets before him the 
sign of his judgment, he calls together the magi and the 
Chaldeans, and passes by Daniel. And what possible ex- 
cuse can he have for this? We have seen, as I have said, 
how very prone men are to be deluded by Satan’s impos- 
tures, and the well-known proverb becomes true,—The world 
loves to be deceived ! 

This, also, is worthy of notice, because in the present day, 
and in troublous times, many protect themselves behind the 
shield of their ignorance. But the explanation is at hand— 
they are willingly blind; they shut their eyes amidst the 
clearest light ; for if God considered King Belshazzar with- 
out excuse when the Prophet was once presented to him, | 
what excuse can the blind of these days allege? Oh! if I 
could determine what God’s will is for me, I would submit 
myself instantly to it, because God daily and openly calls to 
us and invites us, and shews us the way; but none answer 
him, none follow him, or at least how very few! Hence we 
must diligently consider the example of the King of Babylon 
when we see him full of anxiety, and yet not seeking God 
as he ought. And why so? He wanders about in great 
hesitation ; he sces himself constrained, and yet he cannot 
fly from the judgment of God, but seeks consolation in magi, 
Chaldeans, and other impostors ; for, as we have seen, they 
had been once or twice proved so, and this ought to have 
been sufficiently celebrated and notorious to all men. We 
see, then, how blind King Belshazzar was, since he closed 
his eyes to the light offered him. So in the present day 
almost all the world continues in blindness; it is not allowed 
to wander in darkness, but when light shines upon it, it 
closes its eyes, rejects God’s grace, and purposely desires to 
cast itself headlong. This conduct is far too common. 

Now the Prophet says,—The king promised the wise men a 
present of a chain of gold to whoever read the writing ; and 
besides this, ravment of purple, and the third rank in the 





cHAP. V. 8, 9. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


321 
kingdom! This shews him not to have been sincerely 
touched by the fear of God. And this repugnance is worthy 
of observation in the wicked, who dread God’s judgments, 
and yet the pride of their hearts is not corrected and sub- 
dued, as we saw in the case of this king. For his knees 
smote one against the other, and the joints of his loins were 
loosened: he trembles throughout his entire frame, and be- 
comes half dead with fear, because God’s terror seizes on all 
his senses. Meanwhile, we see a hidden pride lurking in his 
mind, which breaks forth in the promise, whoever shall i- 
terpret the writing, shall be the third in rank in the kingdom! 
God had already deprived him of his royal dignity; yet he 
still wishes to raise others on high in defiance of God! What, 
then, is the meaning of this? We see how often the wicked 
are terrified, and how deeply they cherish a hidden con- 
tumacy, so that God never subdues them. They shew, 
indeed, many signs of repentance; but if any one carefully 
weighs all their words and deeds, he will find the Prophet's 
narration concerning King Belshazzar completely verified, 
because they rage against God, and are never teachable or 
obedient, but utterly stupified. We saw this partly in a 
former verse, and shall see it again more clearly at the end 
of the chapter. As to the latter clause of the verse, he shall 
rule as third in the kingdom, it is uncertain whether he pro- 
mises the third portion or the third rank; for many think 
the queen, of whom mention will soon be made, was the wife 
of King Nebuchadnezzar, and grandmother of King Bel- 
shazzar. It follows :— 


8. Then came in all the king’s 
wise men: but they could not read 
the writing, nor make known to the 
king the interpretation thereof. 

9. Then was king Belshazzar 
greatly troubled, and his counte- 
nance was changed in him, and his 
lords were astonied. 


8. Tune ingressi sunt omnes sa- 
pientes regis, et non potuerunt 
scripturam legere, et interpreta- 
tionem ejus patefacere regi. 

9. Tune rex Beltsazar multum 
territus fuit, et vultus ejus mutatus 
fuit super eum, in eo: et principes 
ejus fuerunt obstupefacti.! 


Here Daniel relates how deceived the king was in his 
opinion, in hoping for any interpretation of the writing from 
either the magi or the astrologers, the Chaldeans or the 


? Or, anxious.—Calvin. 


VOL. I. 


x 


, 
a 
Bs . 


~ 





322 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXIV. 


soothsayers ; for none of them could read it. Hence he 
pays here the punishment of his ingratitude in passing over 
God’s Prophet, while he knew he had predicted truth to his 
grandfather just as it had happened, as well as Daniel’s 
general excellence in wisdom. Hence the proofs of his 
calling were sufficiently numerous and trustworthy. Since, 
then, he had so despised God’s unparalleled benefit, he is 
destitute of counsel, and sees himself call in vain upon all 
the Chaldeans and astrologers. For Daniel says, There was 
no one who could read the. writing or reveal its interpretation 
to the king. Because this seems absurd, many Rabbis have 
hazarded various conjectures. Some think the letters were 
transposed ; others guess that they were changed into their 
counterparts and equivalents ; and others think the char- 
acters were changed. But we have elsewhere shewn how 
bold the Jews are in their conjectures, whenever they have 
no certain guide. We do not require their guesses, because, 
very probably, the writing was visible to the king and con- 
cealed from all the Chaldeans, or else they were so blind that 
they could see nothing ; just as God denounced against the 
Jews a stupor of this kind. We see what he pronounces, by 
Isaiah, (xxix. 11,) “ Your law shall be like a sealed book : 
If it shall be said to any one, ‘ Read it,’ he shall say, ‘The 
book is sealed, I cannot :’ or the book may be opened and 
ye shall all become blind: even those who seem to be 
sharper than all others, shall say they are ignorant and 
unlettered men.” Whatever God threatened against the 
Jews we know was fulfilled, and is fulfilled to this day, since 
a veil is put before their eyes, as Paul says. (2 Cor. ili. 14.) 
Hence they were blind in the midst of the brightest light. 
What wonder then if the same thing happened to the Chal- 
deans, so that they could not read the writing? There is 
no necessity to conjecture any transposition of letters, or 
any inversion of their, order, or any change of one into 
another; for the word bon, tekel, went first, and afterwards 
NID, NID, Mena, Mena. These guesses then are frivolous ; 
and thus much is certain, God wished the king to be made 
aware of his approaching destruction ; next, his soul was 
moved, not with repentance, but only enough to render his 





cHAP. V. 8, 9. COMMENTARIES ON DANTEL, 323 


sloth without excuse ; and hence, whether willingly or not, 
he was compelled to send for some remedy, since he knew 
himself to be dealing with God. 

Now, with regard to the writing itself, God could not 
be a free agent unless he possessed the power of addressing 
one man at one time, and a number of men at another. He 
wished King Belshazzar to be conscious of this writing, 
while the magi were all as unable to read it as if they were 
blind. And then, with reference to the interpretation, their 
perplexity need not surprise us. For God spoke enigmati- 
cally, when he said Mune, Menez, and then Texst, that is 
weighed, and Prrss, divided. If the magi could have read 
these words a hundred times over, they could never either 
conjecture or comprehend their true meaning. The prophecy 
was allegorical, until an interpreter was divinely ordained 
for it. So far as the mere letters are concerned, there is no 
reason why we should be surprised at the eyes of the magi 
being blinded, since God pleased it to be so, and wished to 
cite the king to his tribunal, as we have already said. The 
Prophet says, The king was frightened, his countenance was 
changed, and the princes also were disturbed. The publicity 
of the event ought to have increased the sense of God’s 
judgment, for, as we shall afterwards see, King Belshazzar 
himself was slain that very night. Cyrus entered while the 
Babylonians were feasting, and enjoying their luxuries in 
security. So remarkable an example of God’s juctice might 
have been instantly buried in that drunken revel, had it not 
been rendered conspicuous to many bystanders. Hence 
Daniel repeats, The king was disturbed, after he saw no pros- 
pect of either aid or advice from his magi and astrologers. 
He says also, his princes were astonished, because not only 
the king ought to be troubled but the whole Court, and the 
report ought to flow forth not only through the city, but to 
foreign nations, since there is no doubt that Cyrus was 
afterwards informed of this prophecy; for he would not have 
courted Daniel so much, nor honoured him so remarkably, 
unless this occurrence had been made known to him. It 
afterwards follows: 


324 


10. Now the queen, by reason of 
the words of the king and his lords, 
came into the banquet-house ; and 
the queen spake, and said, O king, 
live for ever: let not thy thoughts 
trouble thee, nor let thy counte- 
nance be changed: 

11. There is a man in thy king- 
dom in whom is the spirit of the 
holy gods; and in the days of thy 
father, light and understanding, and 
wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, 
was found in him; whom the king 
Nebuchadnezzar thy father, . the 
king, I say, thy father, made mas- 
ter of the magicians, astrologers, 
Chaldeans, and soothsayers. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, 


yan. a 
fp } 
Va AI 


7) 


LECT, XXIV. 


10. Regina propter verba regis 
et procerum in domum symposii,' 
ingressa est, loquuta est et dixit, 
Rex, in eeternum vive: ne terreant 
te cogitationes tu, et vultus tuus 
ne mutetur, 


11. Est vir in regno tuo, in quo 
spiritus est deorum sanctorum: 
et in diebus patris tui intelligentia,? 
et scientia, et sapientia quasi sa- 
pientia deorum reperta est in eo: 
et Rex Nebuchadnezer pater tuus 
magistrum magorum,’? astrologo- 
rum, Chaldeorum, aruspicum con- 
stituit ipsum, pater tuus rex, i- 
quam. 


Here Daniel relates the occasion of his being brought 
before the king, as the reader and interpreter of the writing. 
The queen, he says, did this. It is doubtful whether it was 
the wife of King Belshazzar, or his grandmother. She was 
probably an old woman, as she refers to events in the time 
of King Nebuchadnezzar. This conjecture has no sufficient 
* foundation, and hence it is better to suspend our judgment 
than to assert anything rashly ; unless, as we before saw, 
his wife was at table with him. As far as we can gather 
the words of the Prophet with certainty, we must diligently 
notice them, and thus convict the king of ingratitude, be- 
cause he did not admit Daniel among the magi, Chaldeans, 
and astrologers. 
in that company ; he would have deserved to lose God’s pro- 
phetic spirit had he thus mingled with impostors ; and he 
is clearly to be distinguished from them. King Nebuchad- 
nezzar had set him over all the magi; he had no wish to 
exercise this honour, unless, as I have just said, he would 
deprive himself of the singular gift of prophecy ; for we must 
always take care how far we can go. We know how very 
prone we are to be enticed by the blandishments of the 
world, especially when ambition blinds us and disturbs all 
our senses. No plague is worse than this, because when any 


1It must be translated in this way, because the noun is derived from 
mnw, shetheh, to drink. —Calvin. 


* Verbally, “light,” used metaphorically.—Calvin. 
§ I do not stop to explain these words.—Calvin. 


The holy man had no wish to be reckoned ~ 








CHAP. V.10,11. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 325 


one sees a prospect of the acquisition of either profit or 
honour, he does not regard either what he ought to do or 
what God permits, but is hurried on by a blind fury. 
This would have happened to Daniel, unless he had been 
restrained by a sense of true piety, and hence he repudiated 
the honour offered him by King Nebuchadnezzar. He never 
wished to be reckoned among soothsayers, and astrologers, 
and impostors of this kind, who deluded that nation with 
prodigies. Here the queen enters and mentions Daniel ; 
but this does not render the king without excuse ; for, as we 
have already said, Daniel had acquired a name of renown 
among men of all ages, and God wished to signalize him by 
a distinct mark, to fix the minds of all upon him, as if he 
were an angel from heaven. As King Belshazzar was igno- 
rant of the existence of such a Prophet in his kingdom, this 
was the result of his gross and brutish indifference. God, 
therefore, wished King Belshazzar to be reproved by a 
woman, who said, Let not thy thoughts disturb thee! She 
calms him quietly, because she saw how frightened he was ; 
but, meanwhile, she shews him the grossness of his error in 
wandering about in uncertainty, when the way was plain 
before him. God had put his torch in the Prophet’s hand 
for the very purpose of lighting the king, unless he wilfully 
desired to wander in darkness, as all the wicked do. Hence, 
we may learn from the example of this king, the common 
fault of our nature’; for no one runs out of the right way, 
unless he indulges in his own ignorance, and desires all 
light to be extinct within him. As to the language of the 
queen, The spirit of the holy gods is in Daniel! we have 
elsewhere explained its meaning. It is not surprising ‘that 
the profane use this language, since they cannot discern 
between the one God and angels. Hence they promiscuously 
eall anything divine and celestial, a god. Thus also the 
queen calls angels, holy gods, and places the true God among 
them. But it is our privilege to acknowledge the true God 
as shining forth alone, and the angels as all taking their 
own ranks without any excellence in heaven or earth to 
obscure the glory of the only God. The writing has this 
tendency—the exaltation of God in the highest degree, and 


326 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXV. 


the magnifying of his excellency and his majestic supremacy, 
We here see how needful it is for us to be instructed in the 
essential unity of God, since from the very beginning of the 
world men have always been persuaded of the existence of 
some Supreme Deity ; but after they became vain in their 
imaginations, this idea entirely escaped them, and they 
mingled God and angels in complete confusion. Whenever 
we perceive this, let us feel our need of Scripture as a guide 
and instructor which shines on our path, urging us to think 
of God as inviting us to himself and willingly revealing 
himself to us. : 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since thou dost constantly address us by thy 
Prophets, and permittest us not to wander in the darkness of error, 
—Grant us, I say, to be attentive to thy voice, and make us docile 


and tractable towards thee; especially when thou settest before 


us a Master in whom are included all treasures of wisdom and 
knowledge. Grant us further, I pray thee, to be subject to 
thine only-begotten Son, to hold on in the right course of our 
holy calling, and to be always pressing onwards to that goal to 
which thou callest us, until we are successful in all our contests 
with this world, and at length arrive at that blessed rest which 
thou hast obtained for us through the blood of the same thy 
Son.—Amen. 


Lecture Thoenty-Kith. 


We: began yesterday to explain the passage where 
Daniel relates how the queen advised King Belshazzar to 
send for the Prophet. We shewed how the king was here 
convicted of ingratitude, in suffering such a Prophet of God 
to be in obscurity so long, because that memorable prophecy, 
already treated, ought to have been well known and in 
everybody’s mouth, as conferring a permanent authority on 
the holy man. Now, when Daniel says, the queen entered the 
banqueting-room; very probably she was not the king’s wife, 
but his grandmother. I have expressed my intention of not 
contending the point, since in doubtful cases every one ought 





} 


_ 


Se ee eee 


= es 





CHAP. v.12. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 827 


ho 


to enjoy his own unbiassed judgment. But it is incongruous 
to say, The king was feasting with his wife and concubines, 
and then to add, “the queen entered the banqueting-room.” 
Hence we suppose her to be called Queen, through the 
honour, rank, and respect which she still enjoyed, without 
any power. The testimony of Herodotus confirms this view, 
for he praises the queen of King Nebuchadnezzar for her 
singular prudence, calling him Labynetus and her Nitocris.’ 
It is far more probable that this matron was absent from a 
banquet unsuitable to her age and gravity, since she would 

searcely be feasting with those who were thus devoting 
themselves to luxury. When she enters the room, she re- 
minds the king of Daniel, and she now gives the reason why 
he surpasses all the magi and soothsayers, the diviners and 
the Chaldees. 


12. Forasmuch as an excellent 12. Propterea quod spiritus excel- 


spirit, and knowledge, and under- 
- standing, interpreting of dreams, and 
shewing of hard sentences, and dis- 
solving of doubts, were found in the 
same Daniel, whom the king named 
Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be 
called, and he will shew the interpre- 


lens, et intelligentia, et cognitio, 
interpretatio somniorum, et arca- 
norum revelatio, et solutio nodorum* 
inventa est in eo, nempe Daniel, cui 
rex imposuerit nomen Beltsazar: 
et nune Daniel vocetur, et interpre- 
tationem patefaciat. 


tation. 


The queen here assigns the reason why Daniel had ob- 
tained the honour of being esteemed the prince and master 
of all the wise men ; because she said, An excellent spirit was 
found in him, as he interpreted dreams, revealed secrets, and 
solved difficulttes. The three gifts in which Daniel excelled 
are here enumerated, and this proves him to have surpassed 
the other magi, since none of them could be compared with 
him. The magi boasted in their ability to interpret dreams, 
to solve all difficulties, and explain enigmas ; but this boast 
of theirs was twice shewn to be vanity and folly. The queen 
therefore deservedly claims these three qualities for Daniel, 
while shewing his superiority to all others. Hence she 
reasons with authority when she says, A name was imposed 
upon him by the king. We have already spoken of this 


1 Herod., lib. i. ¢. 185 and 188. 

2 That is, he resolved difficulties by prudence and knowledge, as I said 
previously. I read it all in one context, though verbs and nouns are inter- 
mingled, for I wish to make it simple, and to avoid ambiguity.—Cwlvin. 





328 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXV, 
name, Belteshazzar ; but the queen now refers to this name, 
to inform the king in what great esteem and honour he was 
held by his grandfather. The name of his father is here 
expressed, since Belshazzar might despise all strangers ; yet 
reason would dictate the propriety of deferring to the judg- 
ment of his grandfather, whom every one knew to be a most 
remarkable character, whom God humbled for a time, as we 
saw, and as Daniel will now allude to it. Let us proceed,— 


13 Then was Daniel brought in before 
the king. And the king spake, and said 
unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which 
art of the children of the captivity of 
Judah, whom the king my father brought 
out of Jewry? 

14. I have even heard of thee, that 
the spirit of the gods ts in thee, and that 
light, and understanding, and excellent 
wisdom, is found in thee. 

15. And now the wise men, the astro- 
logers, have been brought in before me, 
that they should read this writing, and 
make known unto me the interpretation 
thereof : but they could not shew the in- 
terpretation of the thing : 


16. And I have heard of thee, that 
thou canst make interpretations, and 
dissolve doubts: now, if thou canst read 
the writing, and make known to me 
the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be 
clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of 
gold about thy neck, and shalt be the 
third ruler in the kingdom. 


13. Tune Daniel adduetus 
est coram rege: loquutus est 
rex, et dixit Danieli, Tu ne es! 
ille Daniel, qui, ex filiis capti- 
vitatis Jehudah, quem abduxit 
rex pater meus e Jehudah. 

14. Et audivi de te, quod 
spiritus deorum in te, et intelli- 
gentia, et cognitio, et sapientia 
excellens, inventa sit in te. 

15. Et nune producti sunt 
coram me sapientes, arioli,” qui 
scripturam hanc legerent, et in- 
terpretationem ejus pateface- 
rent mihi: et non potuerunt 
interpretationem sermonis in- 
dicare. 

16. Et ego audivi de te, quod 
possis nodos solvere, et arcana 
explicare: nunc si poteris scrip- 
turam legere et interpretatio- 
nem ejus patefacere mihi, pur- 
pura vestieris, et torques ex 
auro super collum tuum, et 
tertius in regno dominaberis. 


Here the king does not acknowledge his own folly, but 


without any modesty he interrogates Daniel, and that, too, 
as a captive,—Art thou that Daniel, of the captives of Judah, 
whom my father led away ? He seems to speak contemptu- 
ously here, to keep Daniel in servile obedience ; although we 
may read this sentence as if Belshazzar inquired, Are you 
that Daniel? Intruth, I have heard of thee! He had heard 
before, and had said nothing; but now, when extreme neces- 
sity urges him, he pays the greatest respect to Daniel. J have 
heard, therefore, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, since thou 


1 If we read it interrogatively; or, “ Thou art Daniel ?’—Calvin. 
? Or, conjurors. I do not dwell on this as I said before.—Calvin. 





CHAP. V.13-16. | COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 329 


canst unravel intricacies and reveal secrets. With regard to 
the spirit of the gods, we have already mentioned how King 
Belshazzar, by the common custom of all nations, promiscu- 
ously mingled angels with God; because those miserable 
ones could not extol God as they ought, and treat angels as 
entirely under his feet. But this sentence shews men never 
were so brutal as not to ascribe all excellence to God, as we 
see in profane writers; whatever promotes human advantage, 
and is remarkable for superiority and dignity, they treat as 
benefits derived from the gods. Thus the Chaldeans called 
the gift of intelligence a spirit of the gods, being a rare and 
singular power of penetration ; since men acknowledge they 
do not acquire and attain to the prophetic office by their 
own industry, but it is a heavenly gift. Hence men are 
compelled by God to assign to him his due praise; but be- 
cause the true God was unknown to them, they speak im- 
plicitly, and, as I have said, they called angels gods, since in 
the darkness of their ignorance they could not discern which 
was the true God. Whatever be the meaning, Belshazzar 
here shews in what estimation he holds Daniel, saying, he 
depends on the reports received from others, and thus dis- 
playing his own slothfulness. He ought to have known the 
Prophet by personal experience ; but from his being content 
with simple rumour, he proudly neglected the teacher offered 
to him, and neither reflected upon nor wished to confess his 
own disgrace. But thus God often extracts a confession 
from the impious, by which they condemn themselves, even 
if they wish exceedingly to escape censure. 

The following phrase has the same meaning :—AUl the 
wise men were brought before me, and the soothsayers or 
diviners, to read this writing to me, and to reveal its inter- 
pretation ; and they could not do it, said he; for God pun- 
ished him by shewing how profitless were all the Chaldeans 
and soothsayers, in whom he trusted at the moment of his 
extremity. While he was thus disappointed in his hopes, 
he acknowledges himself to have been deceived ; and when 
he preferred the magi and soothsayers, he thought himself 
fortified by their counsel, as long as they were on his side. 
Meanwhile his rejection of the holy Prophet was deservedly 


330 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXV. 


intolerable to God. Belshazzar confesses this without in- 
tending to do so; hence I said his confession was not 
ingenuous or voluntary, but violently extorted by the secret 
instinct of God. He also promises Daniel what he had pre- 
viously promised the magi,—Thou shalt be clothed in purple 
of thou canst read this writing, and wear a golden chain round 
thy neck, and thou shalt reign as the third person in the king- 
dom. But the end of his reign was now close at hand, and yet 
in security he offers this dignity to Daniel. This shews how 
rapidly the terror which God had occasioned him had yan- 
ished away. He is agitated by the greatest uneasiness, just 
like madmen, for they having no certainty exult amidst 
their terror, and wish to leap or fly towards heaven itself. 
Thus also this tyrant though he trembles at God’s judgment, 
yet retains a hidden obstinacy in his heart, and imagines 
his kingdom will permanently continue, while he promises — 
wealth and honours to others. It now follows,— 


17. Then Daniel answered and said 17. Tune respondit Daniel, 
before the king, Let thy gifts be to thy- et dixit coram rege, Dona tua 
self, and give thy rewards to another; tibi sint,! et munera tua alteri 
yet I will read the writing unto the king, da: tamen scripturam legam 
and make known to him the interpreta- regi, et interpretationem ejus 
tion. patefaciam ei. 


First of all, Daniel here rejects the proffered gifts. We 
do not read of his doing so before ; he rather seemed to de- 
light in the honours conferred by King Nebuchadnezzar. We 
may inquire into the reason for this difference. It is not 
probable that the intention, feeling, or sentiments of the 
Prophet were different. What then could be his intention 
in allowing himself to be previously ennobled by Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and by now rejecting the offered dignity? Another 
question also arises. At the end of this chapter we shall 
see how he was clothed in purple, and a herald promulgated 
an edict, by which he became third in the kingdom. - The 
Prophet seems either to have forgotten himself in receiving 


. the purple which he had so magnanimously rejected, or we 


may ask the reason why he says so, when he did not refuse 
to be adorned in the royal apparel. With respect to the first 
question, I have no doubt of his desire to treat the impious 


1 That is, may they remain with thee.— Calvin. 





CHAP. v. 17. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. Sol 


and desperate Belshazzar with greater asperity, because in the 
ease of King Nebuchadnezzar there still remained some feel- 
ings of honour, and hence he hoped well of him and treated 
him more mildly. But with regard to King Belshazzar, it 
was necessary to treat him more harshly, because he had 
now arrived at his last extremity. This, I have no doubt, 
was the cause of the difference, since the Prophet proceeded 
straight forward in his course, but his duty demanded of him 
to distinguish between different persons, and as there was 
greater pertinacity and obstinacy in King Belshazzar, he 
shews how much less he deferred to him than to his grand- 
father. Besides, the time of his subjection was soon to be 
finished, and with this end in view he had formerly honoured 
the Chaldean empire. 

As to the contrast apparent between his reply and his 
actions, which we shall hereafter see, this ought not to seem 
absurd, if the Prophet had from the beginning borne his 
testimony against the king’s gifts, and that he utterly re- 
jected them. Yet he does not strive very vehemently, lest 
he should be thought to be acting cunningly, for the pur- 
pose of escaping danger. In each case he wished to display 
unconquered greatness of mind; at the beginning he asserted 
the king’s gifts to be valueless to him, for he knew the end 
of the kingdom to be at hand, and afterwards he received the 
purple with other apparel. If he had entirely refused them, 
it would have been treated as a fault and as a sign of 
timidity, and would have incurred the suspicion of treason. 
The Prophet therefore shews how magnificently he despised 
all the dignities offered him by King Belshazzar, who was 
already half dead. At the same time he shews himself in- 
trepid against all dangers ; for the king’s death was at hand 
and the city was taken in a few hours—nay, in the very 
same hour! Daniel therefore did not reject this purple, 
shewing his resolution not to avoid death if necessary. He 
would have been safer in his obscurity, had he dwelt among 
the citizens at large, instead of in the palace; and if he had 
resided among the captives, he might have been free from 
all danger. As he did not hesitate to receive the purple, he 
displays his perfect freedom from all fear. Meanwhile he, 





332 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXV. 
doubtless, wished to lay prostrate the king’s foolish arro- 
gance, by which he was puffed up, when he says, Let thy 
gifts remain with thee, and give thy presents to another ! I 
care not forthem. Because he so nobly despises the king’s 
liberality, there is no doubt of his desire to correct. the pride 
by which he was puffed up, or at least to wound and arouse 
his mind to feel God’s judgment, of which Daniel will soon 


become both the herald and the witness. 


18. O thou king, the most high 
Godgave Nebuchadnezzar thy father 
a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, 
~ and honour: 

19. And for the majesty that he 
gave him, all people, nations, and 
languages, trembled and feared be- 
fore him: whom he would he slew, 
and whom he would he kept alive, 
and whom he would he set up, and 
whom he would he put down. 


20. But when his heart was lifted 
up, and his mind hardened in pride, 
he was deposed from his kingly 
throne, and they took his glory from 
him. 


It now follows,— 


18. O rex,! Deus excelsus imperi- 
um, et magnitudinem, et prestanti- 
am, et splendorem dedit Nebuchad- 
nezer patri tuo. 

19. Et ob magnitudinem quam 
dederat ei, omnes populi, gentes et 
linguee tremuerunt, et formidarunt 
a conspectu ejus: quem volebat, occi- 
debat :? et quem volebat percutere, 
percutiebat: et quem volebat atiol- 
lere, attollebat: et quem volebat 
dejicere, dejiciebat. 

20. Quando autem elevatum fuit 
cor ejus, et spiritus ejus roboratus 
est? ad superbiam, dejectus fuit e 
solio regni, et gloriam abstulerunt 
ab eo. 


Before Daniel recites the writing, and adds its interpreta- 
tion, he explains to King Belshazzar the origin of this pro- 
digy. He did not begin the reading at once, as he might 
conveniently have done, saying Wene, Mene / as we shall see 
at the end of the chapter, since the king could not have pro- 
fited by his abrupt speech. “But here Daniel shews it to be 
by no means surprising, if God put forth his hand and 
shewed the figure of a hand describing the king’s destruc- 
tion, since the king had too obstinately provoked his anger. 
We see then why Daniel begins by this narrative, since 
King Nebuchadnezzar was a most powerful monarch, sub- 
duing the whole world to himself and causing all men to 
tremble at his word, and was afterwards hurled from the 
throne of his kingdom. Hence it more clearly appears that 
Belshazzar did not live in ignorance, for he had so signal 

? Verbally, “ Thou, O king,” as he addresses him.—-Calvin. 


2 That is, “ whom he wished to slay was slain.” — Calvin. 
® Or, “he was hardened.”—Calvin. 





CHAP. V, 18-20. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 333 


and remarkable an example that he ought to have conducted 
himself with moderation. Since then that domestic admo- 
nition did not profit him, Daniel shews the time to be ripe 
for the denunciation of God’s wrath by a formidable and por- 
tentous sign. This is the sense of the passage. Passing on to 
the words themselves, he first says, To King Nebuchadnezzar 
God gave an empire, and magnificence, and loftiness, and 
splendour ; as if he had said, he was magnificently adorned, 
as the greatest monarch in the world. We have stated else- 
where, and Daniel repeats it often, that empires are bestowed 
on men by divine power and not by chance, as Paul an- 
nounces, There is no power but of God. (Rom. xii. 1.) 
God wishes his power to be specially visible in kingdoms. 
Although, therefore, he takes care of the whole world, and, in 
the government of the human family even the most miserable 
things are regulated by his hand, yet his singular providence 
shines forth in the empire of the world. But since we have 
often discussed this point at length, and shall have many 
opportunities of recurring to it, it is now sufficient just 
briefly to notice the principle of the exaltation of earthly 
kings by the hand of God, and not by the chances of fortune. 

When Daniel confirms this doctrine, he adds, On accownt 
of the magnificence which God conferred upon him, all mor- 
tals trembled at the sight of him! By these words he shews 
how God’s glory is inscribed on kings, although he allows 
them to reign supreme. ‘This indeed cannot be pointed out 
with the finger, but the fact is sufficiently clear ; kings are 
divinely armed with authority, and thus retain under their 
hand and sway a great multitude of subjects. Every one 
desires the chief power over his fellow-creatures. Whence 
happens it, since ambition is natural to all men, that many 
thousands are subject to one, and suffer themselves to be 
ruled over and endure many oppressions? How could this 
be, unless God entrusted the sword of power to those whom 
he wishes to excel? This reason, then, must be diligently 
noticed, when the Prophet says, All men trembled at the 
sight of King Nebuchadnezzar, because God conferred upon 
him that majesty, and wished him to excel all the monarchs 
of the world. God has many reasons, and often hidden ones, 





Sot COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXV. 


why he raises one man and humbles another ; yet this point 
ought to be uncontroverted by us. No kings can possess 
any authority unless God extends his hand to them and 
props them up. When he wishes to remove them from 
power, they fall of their own accord ; not because there is 
any chance in the changes of the world, but because God, as 
it is said in the Book of Job, (xii. 18,) deprives those of the 
sword whom he had formerly entrusted with it. 

It now follows, Whom he wished to slay he slew, and whom 
he wished to strike he struck. Some think the abuse of 
kingly power is here described ; but I had rather take it 
simply; for Nebuchadnezzar being able to cast down some, 
and to raise others at his will, since it was in his power to 
give life to some and to slay others. I, therefore, do not 
refer these words to tyrannical lust, as if Nebuchadnezzar 
had put many innocent persons to death, and poured forth 
human blood without any reason ; or as if he had despoiled 
many of their fortunes, and enriched others and adorned 
them with honour and wealth. Ido not takeit so. I think 
it refers to his arbitrary power over life and death, and over 
the rise of some and the ruin of others. On the whole, 
Daniel seems to me to describe the greatness of that royal 
power which they may freely exercise over their subjects, 
not through its being lawful, but through the tacit consent 
of all men. Whatsoever pleases the king, all are compelled 
to approve of it, or at least no one dares to murmur at it. 
Since, therefore, the regal license is so great, Daniel here 
shews how King Nebuchadnezzar was not carried away by 
his own plans, or purposes, or good fortune, but was entrusted 
_ with supreme power and rendered formidable to all men, 
because God had designed him for his own glory. Mean- 
while, kings usually despise what they are permitted to enjoy, 
and what God allows them. For powerful as they are, 
they must hereafter render an account to the Supreme 
King. We are not to gather from this, that kings are ap- 
pointed by God without any law, or any self-restraint ; but 
the Prophet, as I have said, speaks of the royal power in 
itself. Since kings, therefore, have power over their sub- 
jects for life and death, he says, the life of all men was in 





CHAP. Vv. 18-20. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 335 


the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar. He nowadds, When his 
heart was exalted, then he was casi down (or ejected) from 
the throne of his kingdom, and they deprived him of his 
majesty. He follows up his own narrative. He wishes to 
shew King Belshazzar how God bears with the insolence of 
those who forget him, when they have obtained the summit of 
power. Desiring to make this known, he says, King Nebu- 
chadnezzar, thy grandfather, was a mighty monarch. He 
did not obtain this mightiness by himself, nor could he have 
retained it, except he had been supported by God’s hand. 
Now his change of circumstances was a remarkable proof 
that the pride of those who are ungrateful to God can never 
be endured unto the end, as they never acknowledge their 
sway to proceed from his benevolence. When, therefore, 
says he, his heart.was raised up and his spirit strengthened 
in pride, a sudden change occurred. Hence you and all his 
posterity ought to be taught, lest pride still further deceive 
you, and ye profit not by the example of your father; as we 
shall afterwards relate. Hence this writing has been set 
before thee, for the purpose of making known the destruction 
of thy life and kingdom. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since our own station in life has been 
assigned to us, that we may be content with our lot, and when 
thou dost humble us, may we willingly be subject to thee, and 
suffer ourselves to be ruled by thee, and not desire any exalta- 
tion, which may lead us down to destruction. Grant us also, to 
conduct ourselves so modestly in our yarious callings, that thou 
mayest always shine forth inus. May nothing else be set before 
us than to assist our brethren to whom we are attached, as in 
thy sight; and thus glorify thy name among all men, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord.— Amen. 


Lecture Twenty-sixth. 


In the sentence which we began to explain yesterday, the 
clause must be noticed where Daniel says, The heart of King 





336 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXVL 
Nebuchadnezzar was strengthened by pride, signifying that 
‘he was not suddenly elated by folly, as vain men often swell 
with pride without a cause ; nor does any interior affection 
of the mind precede; but he wishes to express in addition, the 
length of time during which this pride had been conceived ; 
as if he had said, he was not seized by any sudden vanity, but 
his pride was studied, and obstinacy and obduracy were added 
to it. The change of number which afterwards occurs from 
singular to plural, some refer to the angels, as if they de- 
prived him by God’s command; but I rather think these 
words are taken indefinitely, implying merely his being 
deprived of his glory, as we have formerly observed similar 
forms of speech. It now follows— 


21. And he was driven from the 
sons of men; and his heart was made 
like the beasts, and his dwelling was 
with the wild asses: they fed him 
with grass like oxen, and his body was 
wet with the dew of heaven; till he 
knew that the most high God ruled 


21. Et a filiis hominum extermi- 
natus fuit: et cor ejus cum bestiis 
positum est: et cum onagris habi- 
tatio ejus: herba sicut tauros ciba- 
verunt eum: et rore cceli corpus 
ejus irrigatum fuit, donee cognos- 
ceret quod dominetur Deus excelsus 


in the kingdom of men, and that he 


in regno hominum, et quem velit 
appointeth overit whomsoever he will. 


imponat in illo. 


First, with respect to the text; verbally, it is “he put,” 
and thus some translate, “ he placed his own heart among 
the brutes,” which makes a tolerable sense; but others 
rather refer this to God, who placed his heart among beasts, 
and we know how often the noun substantive is defective in 
Hebrew and Chaldee ; hence we may translate it verbally, 
Nebuchadnezzar himself placed his own heart, that is, assimi- 
lated his own senses to the brutes, so as to differ in no respect 
from them. It may also mean, God placed his heart among 
the brutes, that is, infatuated him so, as to render him like 
them. Others take the word WY, shevi, absolutely ; but it 
ought rather to be explained actively. Again, some tran- 
slate the next clause, ‘Made him taste the grass, like a 
brute ;” and others, that the grass supported him. The 
number is changed, but there is no doubt about the sense ; 
for if we read, “The herb of the field supported him,” the 
expression will be indefinite, similar to many others pre- 
viously noticed; but if any one prefers using the plural 





CHAP, V. 21. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 337 - 


number, the sense will be equally suitable; for “the herbs 
of the field gave him nourishment.” 

_ This verse does not need any long explanation, since 
Daniel only repeats what he had formerly written: His 
grandfather, Nebuchadnezzar, although not changed into a 
wild beast, was driven from the common society of men, 
and his whole body was deformed, whilst he abhorred the 
habits of men and preferred to dwell with the brutes. This 
was a horrible prodigy, especially in so great a monarch ; 
and it was an example worthy of being handed down by 
posterity even to a thousand generations, had the monarchy 
endured so long. But his grandson quickly forgot this 
event, and thus he is deservedly convicted of the basest 
slothfulness. This is the reason why Daniel repeats the 
history again, He was driven, says he, from the children of 
men; hisheart was placed among the beasts, meaning he was 
deprived of reason and judgment. We know this to be the 
principal difference between men and brutes—men under- 
stand and reason, but brutes are carried away by their 
senses. God, therefore, set forth a memorable example in 
despoiling this king of his reason and intelligence. His 
dwelling, says he, was with the wild asses ; formerly he had 
dwelt in a palace, conspicuous throughout the world at large, 
from whom all the people of the East sought their laws. 
Since he was habitually worshipped as a god, this was a 
horrible judgment, since he afterwards dwelt among wild 
beasts, and like a bull received his sustenance from the grass 
of the field, when he had previously revelled in every deli- 
cacy, and was accustomed to luxurious habits, and to the 
whole wealth of a kingdom ; especially, when we know how 
luxuriously the Orientals indulged themselves. Babylon was 
the mother of all indulgences, and when the king’s condition 
was thus changed, no one could be ignorant of its cause— 
not mere chance or accident, but the rare and singular 
judgment of God! 

He afterwards adds what he had formerly said, His body 
was moistened by the dews of heaven, until he acknowledged 
God to reign supreme in the kingdom of men. Here again 
the end of the punishment is expressed—that Nebuchad- 


VOL. I. Y 





338 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXVI. 


nezzar might feel himself to have been created king by 
divine power, and to shew how earthly kings could not stand 
unless God propped them up by his hand and influence. 
They think themselves placed beyond the changes of for- 
tune, and although they verbally boast of reigning by the 
grace of God, yet they despise every deity and transfer the 
glory of the divinity to themselves! We gather from these 
words that this is the folly of all kings. For if Nebuchad- 
nezzar had been persuaded of God’s appointment of kings, 
of their dependence upon his will, and of their fall or stabi- 
lity according to his decree, he had not needed this punish- 
ment, as these words clearly imply. He excluded God, 
then, from the government of the world ; but this is common 
with all earthly kings, as I have lately stated. All indeed 
will profess something, but the Holy Spirit does not regard 
those false protestations, as they are called. Hence in the 
character of King Nebuchadnezzar we have set before us, as 
in a glass, the drunken confidence of all kings, in supposing 
themselves to stand by their own power, and to free them- 
selves from the authority of God, as if he were not seated as 
a judge in heaven. Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, ought to be 
humbled, until he acknowledged God’s reign upon earth, 
since the common opinion fixed him up in heaven, as if 
contented with his own ease, and careless of the affairs of 
the human race. At length it is added, and whom he wills, 
he exalts, or sets up. What has been said obscurely is better 
expressed, since Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged, by being 
severely punished and subdued, the reign of God on the 
earth. For when earthly kings see themselves surrounded 
by guards, powerful in riches, and able to collect mighty 
armies by their nod; when they see they inspire uni- 
versal terror, they think God deprived of his rights, and 
are unable to conceive any change; as it is said in the 
Psalms of all the proud, (Ps. x. 4,) and as Isaiah says to the 
same purport, Even should a blast pass by, or a deluge over- 
whelm the whole earth, yet evil shall not touch us. (Is. 
xxvill. 15.) As if they had said, although God should 
thunder from heaven, yet we shall be safe from all disaster 
and disturbance. Kings persuade themselves of this. Hence 





OHAP. Vv. 22. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 339 


they begin to acknowledge God as king of the earth, when 
they feel themselves in his hand and at his disposal, to cast 
down those whom he has raised up, and to exalt the lowly 
and abject, as we have already seen. This clause of the 
verse, then, is an explanation of the former sentence. It now 
follows : 


22. And thou his son, O Belshaz- 22. Et tu filius ejus Beltsazar, 
zar, hast not humbled thine heart, non humiliasti cor tuum: qua prop- 
though thou knewest all this. ter’ totum hoe cognoveras. 


Daniel here shews why he related what we have hitherto 
heard concerning King Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment ; for 
Belshazzar ought to have been so affected by that domestic 
example, as to submit himself to God. We may believe, in- 
deed, that his father Evil-Merodach had forgotten his pun- 
ishments, since he would not have conducted himself so 
petulantly against God, nor trampled on true and sincere 
piety ; for God spared the wretched tyrant who restrained 
himself within the bounds of moderation. But as to his 
grandfather Belshazzar, he was altogether intolerable ; hence 
God stretched forth his hand. The Prophet now teaches 
this. Thou art his son, says he. This circumstance urges 
upon him with greater force the duty of not seeking an 
example in foreign nations, since he acknowledged himself 
to have sufficient at home of what was both necessary and 
useful. He enlarges upon his crime in another way, by say- 
ing, Yet thow didst know this. Men are accustomed to shield 
themselves under their ignorance with the view of extenuat- 
ing the guilt of their crimes, but those who sin knowingly 
and wilfully are without the slightest excuse. The Prophet 
therefore convinces the king of manifest obstinacy ; as if he 
had said, You have provoked God’s anger on purpose ; since 
he ought to have been aware of the horrible judgment await- 
ing all the proud, when he had such a remarkable and sin- 
gular proof of it in his grandfather, which he ought to have 
kept constantly before his eyes. It follows,— 


23. But hast lifted up thyself | 23. Et contra Dominum celi te 
against the Lord of heaven; and _ extulisti, et vasa domus ejus,? pro- 
they have brought the vessels of his tulerunt in conspectum tuum: et tu, 


1 Verbally—but it means, “ since.”—Calvin. 
* That is, of his temple.—Calvin. 


840 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


house before thee, and thou and thy 
lords, thy wives and thy concubines, 
have drunk wine in them; and thou 
hast praised the gods of silver, and 
gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, 
which see not, nor hear, nor know: 
and the God in whose hand thy 
breath is, and whose are all thy 
ways, hast thou not glorified. 


a: i 





LECT. XXVI. 


et proceres tui, uxores tuse,’ et con- 
cubinee tuse vinum bibistis in illis: 
et deos argenti, hoc est, argenteos, et 
aureos, seneos, ferreos, ligneos, et la~ 
pideos, qui non vident, et non audi- 
unt, et non intelligunt, laudasti: et 


Deum, cui est in manu ejus anima 


tua,? et cujus* omnia tua, non hono- 
rasti. 


The Prophet continues his own sentence, and confirms 
what I have said, namely, King Belshazzar was intractable 
and wilfully blindto God’s judgment. or thow hast raised 


thyself, says he, against the Lord of heaven. If he had raised — 


himself thus insolently against men, his sin would be worthy 
of punishment ; but when he had provoked God on purpose, 
this arrogance neither could nor ought to be borne. Again, 
therefore, the Prophet increases the guilt of the king’s pride 
by saying, he raised himself against the King of heaven. He 
also expresses the manner of his doing so, by commanding 
the vessels of the temple to be brought to sight ; he drank from 
them! This profanation was an indecent sacrilege, but 
Belshazzar was not content with that indignity ; he used these 
vessels for luxury and foul debauchery, abusing them in the 
company of concubines and abandoned women; and added 
a yet greater reproach against God, in praising his gods of 
silver and gold, brass and iron, wood and stone, which cannot 
feel. This had not been said previously; but since Daniel: 
here sustains the character of a teacher, he does not relate 
the events so shortly as at first. When he said at the be- 
ginning of this chapter, Belshazzar celebrated that impure 
banquet, he spoke historically ; but he now executes, as I 
have said, the office of ateacher. Thou, says he, hast praised 
the gods made of corruptible material, who neither see, nor 
hear, nor understand ; but thou hast defrauded the living God 
of his honour, in whose hand is thy life, on which thou de- 
pendest, and whence all in which thou boastest proceeds. 
Because thou hast so despised the living God, who had 
been so gracious unto thee, this ingratitude was both base 
and shameful. We see, therefore, how severely the Prophet 
1 Or, thy wife.—Calvin. 


* That is, in whose hand is thy life.—Calvin. 
* In whose power are all things.— Calvin. 








CHAP. V. 24. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 341 


reproves the impious tyrant of sacrilege, and mad _ rashness, 
and foul ingratitude towards God. I pass over these things 
lightly, since they have been treated elsewhere. It now 
follows,— 


24. Then was the part of the 24. Tunc a conspectu ejus missa 
hand sent from him; and this writ- est particula manus,' et scriptura 
ing was written. hee notata fuit. 


Some stress must be laid upon the adverb }9NA, badin, 
“at that time,” because God’s wrath, or at least its denun- 
ciation, was now ripe. Daniel, therefore, shews how very 
patiently God had borne with King Belshazzar in not in- 
stantly taking up arms and inflicting punishment ; but he 
now begins to come forth as a judge, and to ascend his judg- 
ment seat; for the haughtiness was now desperate, and the 
impiety no longer tolerable. We observe with what em- 
phasis the word then is used ; as if he had said, Thou canst 
not complain of the swiftness of the penalty, as if God had 
exacted it before the time. Thou canst not here complain 
of God’s swiftness in punishing thee; for think and consider 
in how many ways, and for how long a time, thou hast pro- 
voked his anger. And with regard to thy last crime, thou 
certainly hadst arrived at the height of impiety, when that 
hand appeared to thee. God, therefore, now drags thee to 
punishment in proper time, since he has hitherto borne 
-with thee and thy sins. After this forbearance, what re- 
- mains to prevent his destroying thee, because thou hast so 
proudly insulted him, and art utterly hardened, without the 
slightest hope of amendment. 

He says also, from himself ; for Belshazzar need not in- 
quire whence the hand proceeded, it came from the presence 
of God ; that is, This hand is a witness to the wrath of 
heaven ; do not consider it as a spectre which will vanish 
away, but see in this appearance a proof of God’s displeasure 
at thy wickedness ; and because thou hast arrived at thy 
last extremity, thy punishment is also ready for thee. And 
this writing, says he, has been marked ; as if he had said, 
~ The eyes of King Belshazzar were not deceived, since this 
1 Some translate, “the palm,” but they understand a hand separate 


from the body—that portion of a hand, that is, a hand as if cut off from 
the body, was sent from God’s presence, says he.— Calvin. 





—— - >,” 
; ae | 
ro Fy, 


342 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXVI. 


was really God’s hand, being sent from his sight as a certain 


testimony of his wrath. He afterwards adds,— 


25. And this is the writing that 
was written, MENE, MENE, TE- 
KEL, UPHARSIN. 


26. This is the interpretation of 
the thing: MENE; God hath 
numbered thy kingdom, and finish- 
ed it. 

27. TEKEL; Thou art weighed 
in the balances, and art found want- 
ing. 

28. PERES; Thy kingdom is 
divided, and given to the Medes and 
Persians. 


25. Et hee est scriptura que no- 
tata est,| MENE, MENE, numera- 
tum est, numeratum est, TEKEL, 
appensum est,? UPHARSIN, et 
dividentes. 

26. Hee interpretatio est ser- 
monis: MENE, numeravit Deus 
regnum tuum et complevit.’ 


27. TEKEL, appende, vel, ap- 
pensum est, appensus es in trutina,4 
et inventus es deficiens. 

28. Peres pro upharsin, divisum 
est regnum tuum, et datum Medis 
et Persis. 


Daniel here explains these four verses which were written 
upon the wall. The king could not read them, either through 
stupor, or because God blunted all his senses, and blinded 
his eyes, as was formerly said. The same thing must be 
said of the magi and the soothsayers, for they could have 
read, had they not been rendered blind. First of all, Daniel 
recites the four words, Mrenz, Menz, Tekst, UpHarsin, and 
then adds their interpretation. He repeats the word Mznz 
twice. Some conjecture this to apply to the numbering of 
the years of the king’s life, and also to the time of his 
reign ; but the guess seems to be without any foundation. 
I think the word is used twice for the sake of confirmation ; 
as if the Prophet meant the number to be completed, since 
men usually allow calculations to be liable to error. To im- 
press upon Belshazzar that his life and kingdom were at 
stake, God affirms the number to be complete, meaning, not 
a moment of time can be added to the boundary already de- 
termined. So also Daniel himself interprets it: God, says 
he, has numbered thy kingdom ; implying, God has appointed 
and prescribed a fixed end to thy kingdom ; hence it must 
necessarily come to an end, since its period is fulfilled. 

Although God here addresses but one king by the writing 
set before his eyes, we may still gather this general instruc- 

1 Or, engraved.—Calvin. 


2 Some translate, number, number, weigh.—Calvin. 
= Or, finished. —Calvin. * Or, in a balance, —Calvin. 








CHAP. V. 25-28. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 343 


tion—God has prescribed a certain time for all kingdoms. 
(Job xiv. 5.) The Scripture bears the same witness con- 
cerning the life of each of us. If God has prescribed to each 
of us the length of his life, surely this applies more forcibly 
to public empires, of so much greater ifmportance. Hence 
we may know how not only kings live and die according to 
God's pleasure, but even empires are changed, as we have 
formerly said. He fixes alike their origin and their destiny. 
Hence we may seek consolation, when we see tyrants rush- 
ing on so impetuously, and indulging their lust and cruelty 
without moderation. When, therefore, they rush on, as if 
they would mingle heaven and earth, let us remember this 
instruction, Their years are numbered ! God knows how long 
they are to rage ; He is not deceived ; He knows whether it 
is useful to the Church and his elect, for tyrants to prevail 
for a time. By and bye he will surely restrain them, but 
since he determined the number of their days from the be- 
ginning, the time of his vengeance is not yet quite at hand, 
while he allows them a little longer to abuse without re- 
straint the power and the sway which he had divinely 
granted them. 

The exposition of the word TEKEL, to weigh, now follows :— 
Since thou hast been weighed in the balance, or scale, and 
found wanting. Here Daniel shews God so moderating his 
judgments, as if he was carrying a balance in his hand. The 
emblem is taken from the custom of mankind; for men 
know the use of the balance for accurate measurement. So 
also God is said to treat all things by weight and measure, 
since he does nothing with confusion, but uses moderation ; 
and, according to ordinary language, nothing is more or less 
than it should be. (Wisdom xi. 21.) For this reason, Daniel 
says God weighed Belshazzar in a balance, since he did not 
make haste to inflict punishment, but exacted it with justice 
according to his own uniform rule of government. Since he 
was found deficient, that is, was found light and without 
weight. As if he had said, Thou thinkest thy dignity must 
be spared, since all men revere thee; thou thinkest thyself 
worthy of honour ; thou art deceived says he, for God judges 
otherwise ; God does not use a common scale, but holds his ~ 





344 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXVI. 


own, and there thou art found deficient ; that is, thou art found 
aman of no consequence, in any way. From these words 
there is no doubt that the tyrant was greatly exasperated, 
but as his last end was approaching, he ought to hear the 
voice of the herald. And God, without doubt, restrained 
his fierceness, that he should not rise up against Daniel. 
The word D5, PueErszs, is added, for the word PHeERsry, 
meaning his kingdom was divided among the Medes and 
Persians. I have no doubt that by this word God signified 
the dispersion of the Monarchy which was at hand. When, 
therefore, he says Uparstn, and they shall divide, it signifies 
the instability of the Monarchy, since he wished to destroy 
or utterly abolish it. But the Prophet alludes very appo- 
sitely to the division made between the Medes and Persians; 
and thus his disgrace was increased by the Babylonians 
_ being compelled to serve many masters. This is indeed a 
grave and serious disgrace, when a people has obtained a 
wide and extensive empire, to be afterwards conquered and 
subjected to the yoke of a single master ; but when it suffers 
under two masters, then the indignity is greatly increased. 
So Daniel here shews how God’s wrath was complicated in 
the destruction of the monarch of Babylon, since it added 
to the severity of their punishment, to be subdued by both 
Medes and Persians. The city, indeed, was truly taken by 
the valour and industry of Cyrus ; but since Cyrus admitted 
his father-in-law to the great honour of allowing him to par- 
take of the royal authority, hence the Medes and Persians 
are said to have divided the kingdom, although there was 
properly no division of the kingdom. Cyrus afterwards en- 
gaged in other expeditions, as he was led away by his in- 
satiable avarice and ambition. But Darius, as we shall 
afterwards see, died at the age of sixty years, dwelt quietly 
at home, and it is very well known that he was a Mede; and 
if we may believe the majority of historians, his sister, the 
mother of Cyrus, had been banished to Persia, in consequence 
of the oracle concerning the fortune and greatness of Cyrus. 
Since his grandfather had exposed him, he afterwards 
avenged the injury, yet not so cruelly as to take his life, for 
he desired him to retain some dignity, and hence appointed 


4, en ul zy a a - =o a ee ee ee 
awe ‘ 7 > 





CHAP. V. 29. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 845 


him a satrap. But his son afterwards reigned over the 
‘Medes, with the full permission of Cyrus, who next married 
his daughter ; and thus, on account of this relationship, and 
through the influence of this new alliance, he wished to have 

him as a partner in the empire. In this sense, then, Daniel 
narrates the division of the Monarchy to be at hand, since 
the Medes and the Persians should divide it among them. 
lt follows,— 


29. Then commanded Belshazzar, 29. Tunc jussit Beltsazar, et ves- 
and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, tierunt Danielem purpura, et tor- 
and put a chain of gold about his ques aureus super collum ejus:! et 
neck, and made a proclamation con- clamabant coram ipso quod domi- 
cerning him, that he should be the naretur tertius in regno. 
third ruler in the kingdom. 


This order of the king may excite surprise, since he had 
been so sharply reproved by the Prophet. He next seemed 
to have lost all spirit, for he had grown pale a hundred times, 
and would have devoted the holy Prophet of God to a thou- 
sand deaths! How happens it, then, that he ordered him to 

_ be adorned with royal apparel, and next to be proclaimed 
by his own herald the third person in the kingdom? Some 
think this was done because the laws of kings were sacred 
among the Babylonians; nay, their very words were held as 

- binding, and whatever they proclaimed, they desired it to 
be esteemed firm and inviolable. They suppose King Bel- 
shazzar to have acted thus through ambition, that he might 
keep his promises. My opinion is, that he was at first utterly 
astonished, and through listening to the Prophet he became 

~ like a stock ora stone! I think he did so to consult his 
- own ease and safety; otherwise he would have been con- 
temptible to his nobles. To shew himself unmoved, he com- 
mands Daniel to be clothed in these robes, as if his threat 
had been perfectly harmless. He did not despise what the 
Prophet had said, but he wished to persuade his nobles and 
all his guests of his perfect indifference to God’s threats, as 
if he did not utter them for the purpose of executing them, 
but only of terrifying them all. Thus kings, when greatly 
terrified, are always exceedingly careful not to shew any sign 
of their timidity, since they think their authority would 


1 Was placed.—Calvin, 


346 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXVII. 


become materially weakened. To continue, therefore, his 
reverence among his subjects, he is desirous of appearing 
exceedingly careless and undisturbed ; and I do not hesitate 
to pronounce this to have been the tyrant’s intention in 
ordering Daniel to be clad in purple and in royal magnifi- 
cence. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, that as thou didst once send forth a proof 
of thy wrath against all the proud, so it may be useful to us in 
these days. May we be admonished by the punishment inflicted 
on this man, and thus learn to conduct ourselves with moderation 
and humility. May we not desire any greatness which can be 
displeasing to thee ; and may we so remain in our station of life 
as to serve thee, and to extol and glorify thy sacred name, with- 
out being even separated from thee. Grant us also so to bear 
thy yoke in this world, and to suffer ourselves to be ruled by thee, 
that we may at length arrive at that happy rest and portion in 
thy heavenly kingdom, which thou hast prepared and procured 
for us, through the blood of thine only-begotten Son.—Amen. 


Lecture Twenty-sebenth. 


30. In that night was Belshazzar 30. In illa nocte occisus fwit Bel- 
the king of the Chaldeans slain. tsazar rex Chaldeorum. 

31. And Darius the Median took 31. Et Darius Medus accepit reg- 
the kingdom, being about threescore num, cum natus esse¢ annos sex- 
and two years old. aginta et duos. 

Here Daniel shortly relates how his prophecy was fulfilled 
that very night. As we have before explained it, a cus- 
tomary feast-day had occurred which the Babylonians cele- 
brated annually, and on this occasion the city was betrayed 
by two satraps, whom Xenophon calls Gobryas and Gadatas. 
On this passage the Rabbis display both their impudence 
and ignorance ; as, according to their usual habit, they 
babble with audacity about what they do not understand. 
They say the king was stabbed, because one of his guards 
heard the Prophet’s voice, and wished to execute that hea- 
venly judgment; as if the sentence of God depended upon 
the will of a single heathen! We must pass by these puerile 
trifles and cling to the truth of history; for Belshazzar was 





OHAP.V.30,31. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 347 


seized in his own banqueting-room, when: he was grossly 
intoxicated, with his nobles and concubines. Meanwhile, 
we must observe God’s wonderful kindness towards the Pro- 
phet. He was not in the slightest danger, as the rest were. 
He was clad in purple, and scarcely an hour had passed when 
the Medes and Persians entered the city. He could scarcely 
have escaped in the tumult, unless God. had covered him 
with the shadow of his hand. We see, then, how God takes 
care of his own, and snatches us from the greatest dangers, 
as if he were bringing us from the tomb. There is no doubt 
that the holy Prophet was much agitated amidst the tumult, 
for he was not without sensibility." But he ought to be thus 
exercised to cause him to acknowledge God as the faithful 
guardian of his life, and to apply himself more diligently to 
his worship, since he saw nothing preferable to casting all 
his cares upon him ! 

Daniel adds, the kingdom was transferred to the king of 
the Medes, whom he calls Darius, but Xenophon terms him 
Cyaxares. It is clear enough that Babylon was taken by 
the skill and under the auspices of Cyrus; since he was a 
persevering warrior possessed of great authority, though he 
is not mentioned here. But since Xenophon relates that 
Cyaxares, here called Darius, was Cyrus’s father-in-law, and 
thus held in the highest honour and estimation, it is not sur- 
prising to find Daniel bringing that king before us. Cyrus 
was content with his own power and with the praise and 
fame of his victory, and readily conceded this title to his 
father-in-law, whom he perceived to be now growing aged 
and infirm. It is uncertain whether he was the son of Asty- 
ages, and thus the uncle of Cyrus. Many historians concur 
in stating that Astyages was the grandfather of Cyrus who 
married his daughter to Cambyses; because the astrologers 
had informed him how an offspring should be born of her 
who should possess the sovereignty over all Asia! Many 
add the story of his ordering the infant Cyrus to be slain, 
but since these matters are uncertain, I leave them unde- 
cided. I rather think Darius was the uncle of Cyrus, and 


1 The Latin is “ stipes :” the French, “ une souche de bois * literally, a 
log or block of woed.—-Zd. 


a. oe 
. x 

‘So la ’ 

hei 


348 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXVII. 
also his father-in-law; though, if we believe Xenophon, he 
was unmarried at the capture of Babylon ; for his uncle, and 
perhaps his father-in-law, had sent him to bring supplies 
when he was inferior in numbers to the Babylonians and 
Assyrians. However this may be, the Prophet’s narrative 
suits the circumstances well enough, for Darius, as king of 
the Medes, obtained the royal authority. Cyrus was, indeed, 
higher than he in both rank and majesty, but he granted 
him the title of King of Babylon, and under this name he 
reigned over the Chaldeans, It now follows,— 


CHAPTER SIXTH. 


1. It pleased Darius to set over 
the kingdom an hundred and twenty 
princes, which should be over the 


1. Placuit coram Dario, et pre- 
fecit super regnum preesides provin- 


whole kingdom ; 

2. And over these three presidents, 
of whom Daniel was first ; that the 
princes might give accounts unto 
them, and the king should have no 
damage. 


ciarum centum et viginti, qui essent 
in toto regno. 

2. Et super illos essent, atque ut 
essent super eos, satrap tres, quo- 
rum Daniel unus esset: et ut pre- 
sides provinciarum illis redderent 


rationem: et rex non pateretur 
damnum. 


As to the translation, some translate the last clause of the 
second verse, “ That the king should not have any trouble ;” 
but since p13, nezek, signifies “to suffer loss,” I willingly 
adopt this sense ; because the king did not escape trouble, 
through a desire for ease, as he might have done, being an 
old man, but he willingly managed his own affairs, and com- 
mitted the care of them to three men, lest anything should 
be lost through passing through too many hands. For expe- 
rience shews us how confusion is caused by a multitude. If 
there had been only there an hundred and twenty governors 
of provinces, many inconveniences must have happened, and 
much loss would have occurred ; hence the king placed three 
prefects over these hundred and twenty. 

Here again we may perceive how God cared for his Pro- 
phet, not so much for any private reason or through private 
respect, as by hisaid the wretched captives and exiles should 
be benefited. God wished to stretch forth his hand to the 
Jews by means of Daniel. And we may deservedly call him 


Bh, 





ouap. VI. I, 2. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 349 


God's hand in sustaining the Jews. The Persians, being 
barbarians, were not naturally more merciful than others; 
hence God interposed his servant Daniel to succour them. 
We must notice, in the context of this history, how Daniel 
alone was chosen by Darius one of these three superior offi- 
cers. He was the third in rank under king Belshazzar, al- 
though for a moment, yet it might occasion envy under the 
new king that so great an honour was conferred upon him. 
Very probably Darius was informed of the previous predic- 
tions of Daniel ; how the hand appeared upon the wall, how 
he interpreted the writing, and became a heaven-sent mes- 
senger to denounce destruction on king Belshazzar. For 
unless this rumour had reached Darius, Daniel would never 
have obtained so much authority under him. His own army 
abounded in numbers, and we know how every conqueror is 
surrounded in war by many dependents, all of whom wish 
to share in the spoil. Darius, therefore, would never have 
noticed a stranger and a captive, and admitted him to such 
great honour and power, unless he had understood him to be 
a known Prophet of God, and also a herald in denouncing 
destruction against the Babylonish monarchy. Thus we 
gather how providential it was for him to be among the first 
satraps, and even third in the kingdom, as this brought him 
more quickly under the notice of Darius. For if Daniel had 
been cast down by king Belshazzar he would have remained 
at home in concealment ; but when he appeared clothed in 
royal apparel, the king inquired who he was? He heard 
the means of his arriving at so high an honour; hence he 
acknowledged him as God’s Prophet, and appointed him one 
of the three prefects. Here also God’s providence is again 
set before us, not only in preserving his servant in safety, 
but in providing for the safety of the whole Church, lest the 
Jews should be still more oppressed by the change of masters. 
But a temptation is afterwards inflicted, by which the holy 
Prophet and the whole people were severely tried; for the 
Prophet says: 

3. Then this Daniel was preferred 3. Tune Daniel ipse fuit superior,’ 


1 The word M¥3, netzech, means to surpass; hence he was superior or 
more excellent.—Calvin. 


350 


above the presidents and princes, 
because an excellent spirit was in 
him; and the king thought to set 
him over the whole realm. 


4. Then the presidents and princes 
sought tofind occasion against Daniel 
concerning the kingdom; but they 
could find none occasion nor fault ; 
forasmuch as he was faithful, neither 
was there any error or fault found 
in him. 

5. Then said these men, We shall 
not find any occasion against this 
Daniel, except we find 7 against him 
concerning the law of his God. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 





LECT. XXVILI. » 


supra satrapas et presides provin- 
ciarum: propterea quod spiritus am- 
plior, vel, proestantior, in ipso erat: 
et rex cogitabat eum erigere super 
totum regnum. 

4. Tunc satrape, et presides pro- 
vinciarum quesierunt occasionem 
invenire contra Danielem a parte 
regni,! et omnem occasionem,’ et 
nullum crimen potuerunt invenire : 
quia verax® ipse: et nulla culpa, et 
nullum crimen,‘ inveniebatur in ipso. 

5. Tune viri illi dixerunt, non in- 
veniemus in hoc Daniele ullam oc- 
casionem, nisi inveniamus in ipso ob 
legem Dei sui. 


The Prophet now relates, as I have said, the origin of a 
temptation which might naturally cast down the spirits of 
the elect people as well as his own. For although Daniel 
alone was cast into the lion’s-den, as we shall afterwards see, 
yet, unless he had been liberated, the condition of the people 
would have been more grievous and severe. For we know 
the wicked petulantly insult the wretched and the innocent, 
when they see them suffering any adversity. If Daniel had 
been torn by the lions, all men would have risen up ina 
body against the Jews. God, therefore, here exercised the 
faith and patience of his servant, and also proved all the 
Jews by the same test, since they saw themselves liable to 
the most extreme sufferings in the person of a single indi- 
vidual, unless God had speedily afforded the assistance 
which he rendered. Daniel, first of all, says, he excelled all 
others, since a more excellent or superior spirit was in him. 
It does not always happen that those who are remarkable 
for prudence or other endowments obtain greater authority 
and rank. In the palaces of kings we often see men of brutal 
dispositions holding high rank, and we need not go back to 
history for this. In these days kings are often gross and 
infatuated, and more like horses and asses than men! Hence 
audacity and recklessness obtain the highest honours of the 
palace. When Daniel says he excelled, he brings to our notice 


1 That is, in his administration.—Calvin. 

? That is, no occasion.—Calvin. 

* Since he was faithful and thoroughly trusty. —Calvin. 

* He repeats the noun for “ crime” twice, NNN, shechitheh.—Calvin. 





CHAP. V1. 3-5. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 351 


God’s two-fold benefit: first, a greater portion of his Spirit 
was bestowed upon him ; and secondly, Darius acknowledged 
this, and raised him to honour when he saw him endued 
with no ordinary industry and wisdom. We now understand 
the Prophet’s teaching here, as first divinely adorned with 
prudence and other endowments; and then, Darius was a 
competent judge of this, in estimating his prudence and 
other virtues, and holding them in great repute. Since, 
therefore, a noble spirit was in him, hence he overcame all 
others, says he; therefore the king determined to set him 
above the whole kingdom, that is, to place him first among 
the three satraps. Although it was a singular privilege with 
which God once blessed his people and his Prophet, yet we 
ought to weep over the heartlessness of kings in these days, 
who proudly despise God’s gifts in all good men who surpass 
the multitude in usefulness ; and at the same time enjoy the 
society of the ignorant like themselves, while they are slaves 
to avarice and rapine, and manifest the greatest cruelty and 
licentiousness. Since, then, we see how very unworthy kings 
usually are of their empire and their power, we must weep 
over the state of the world, because it reflects like a glass the 
wrath of heaven, and kings are thus destitute of counsel. 
At the last day, King Darius alone will be sufficient to con- 
demn them, for he had discretion enough not to hesitate to 
set a captive and a foreigner over all his satraps; for this 
was a royal, nay, a heroic virtue in Darius to prefer this 
man to all his own friends. But now kings think of nothing 
else than preferring their own panders, buffoons, and flat- 
terers; while they praise none but men of low character, 
whom God has branded with ignominy. Although they are 
unworthy of being reckoned among mankind, yet they esteem 
themselves the masters of their sovereigns, and treat the 
kings of these days as their slaves. This happens through 
their mere slothfulness, and their discarding every possible 
anxiety. Hence they are compelled to deliver up their com- 
mand to others, and retain nothing but the title. This, as I 
said, is a sure proof of the wrath of heaven, since the world 
is at this day unworthy of the government which God exer- 
cises over it by his hand. 


_ * ae 
‘vy ee 
i 7 
_— ’ 
¢ 


352 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXVII, 


With respect to the envy felt by the nobles, we see this 
vice rampant in all ages, since the aspirants to any great- 
ness can never bear the presence of virtue. For, being guilty 
of evil themselves, they are necessarily bitter against the 
virtue of others. Nor ought it to seem surprising that the 
Persians who sustained the greatest labours, and passed 
through numerous changes of fortune, should be unable to 
bear with an obscure and unknown person, not only asso- . 
ciated with them, but appointed as their superior. Their 
envy, then, seems to have had some pretext, either real or 
imaginary. But it will always be deserving of condemna- 
tion, when we find men selfishly pursuing their own adyan- 
tage without any regard for the public good. Whoever 
aspires to power and self-advancement, without regarding the 
welfare of others, must necessarily be avaricious and rapa- 
cious, cruel and perfidious, as well as forgetful of his duties. 
Since, then, the nobles of the realm envied Daniel, they 
betrayed their malice, for they had no regard for the public 
good, but desired to seize upon all things for their own inter- 
ests. In this example we observe the natural consequence 
of envy. And we should diligently notice this, since nothing 
is more tempting than gliding down from one vice to a worse. 
The envious man loses all sense of justice while attempting 
every scheme for injuring his adversary. These nobles re- 
port Daniel to have been preferred to themselves unworthily. 
If they had been content with this abuse, it would have 
been, as I said, a vice and a sign of a perverse nature. But 
they go far beyond this, for they seek for an occasion of 
crime in Daniel. We see, then, how envy excites them to 
the commission of crime. Thus all the envious are perpetu- 
ally on the watch, while they become spies of the fortunes 
of those whom they envy, to oppress them by every possible 
means. This is one point; but when they find no crime, 
they trample upon justice, without modesty and without 
humanity, and with cruelty and perfidy lay themselves out 
to crush an adversary. Daniel relates this of his rivals. He 
says, They ummediately sought occasion against him, and did 
not find it. Then he adds how unjustly and perfidiously 
they sought occasion against him. There is no doubt they 





OHAP. VI. 3-5. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 353 


knew Daniel to be a pious man and approved by God ; hence, 
when they plot against his holy Prophet, they purposely wage 
war with God himself, while they are blinded with the per- 
verse passion of envy. Whence, then, does it spring? Surely 
from ambition. Thus we see how pestilential a plague ambi- 
tion is, from which envy springs up, and afterwards perfidy 
and cruelty ! 

Besides this, Daniel admonishes us by his own example to 
study to strive after integrity, and thus to deprive the male- 
volent and the wicked of all occasion against us, which they 
seek. We shall find no better defence against the envious 
and the slanderous than to conduct ourselves righteously and 
innocently. Whatever snares they may lay for us, they will 
never succeed, for our innocence will repel their malice like 
a shield. Meanwhile we see how Daniel escaped utter ruin, 
since they sought a pretext against him in something else, 
namely, his worship of God. Hence let us learn how we 
ought to esteem piety and an earnest desire for it of more 
value than life itself. Daniel was faithful and upright in 
his administration: he discharged his duty so as to close 
the mouth of his enemies and detractors. Thus, as I have 
said, integrity is the best of all protectors. Again, Daniel 
was in danger because he would not leave off the sincere 
worship of God and its outward profession. Hence we must 
bravely undergo all dangers whenever the worship of God is 
at stake. This temporary life ought not to be more precious 
to us than that most sacred of all things—the preservation 
of God’s honour unstained. We therefore see how we, by 
these means, are urged to the cultivation of integrity, since 
we cannot be more secure than when fortified by a good 
conscience, as Peter in his first epistle exhorts us to the 
same purpose, (ili. 16.) Now, whatever we may fear, and 
whatever events await us, even if we become subject to a 
hundred deaths, we ought never to decline from the pure 
worship of God, since Daniel’ did not hesitate to submit to 
death and enter the lion’s den, because he openly professed 
the worship of Israel’s God. As these nobles entered into 
this barbarous and cruel counsel for oppressing Daniel under 
the pretence of religion, here, again, we gather the blind- 

VOL, I. Z 





354 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXVII. 
ness and rashness of mankind when ambition and envy 
seize upon their minds. For it is a matter of no moment 
with them to come into collision with the Almighty," for they 
do not approach Daniel as a fellow-creature, but they leap 
into an insane and sacrilegious contest when they wish to 
extinguish the worship of God and give way to their own 
indulgence. Thus, as I have said, we are admonished by 
this example how ambition is to be guarded against and 
avoided, and also the envy which arises from it. The nature 
of this charge—the worship of God—afterwards follows :— 


6. Then these presidents and 
princes assembled together to the 
king, and said thus unto him, King 
Darius, live for ever. 

7. All the presidents of the king- 
dom, the governors, and the princes, 
the counsellors, and the captains, 
have consulted together to estab- 
lish a royal statute, and to make a 
firm decree, that whosoever shall ask 
a petition of any god or man for 
thirty days, save of thee, O king, he 
shall be cast into the den of lions. 


6. Tune satrape et provinciarum 
presides illi sociati sunt* apud 
regem,’ et sic locuti sunt ei: Dari 
rex, in eternum vive. 

7. Consilium ceperunt omnes sa- 
trape regni, proceres et presides 
provinciarum, consiliarii, et duces, 
ut statuatur statutum regis,* et san- 
ciatur edictum, ut quisquis petierit 
petitionem ab ullo deo et homine 
usque ad dies triginta hos, preeter- 
quam a te, rex, projiciatur m spe- 
luncam leonum. 


The nobles of the kingdom purposely endeavoured to ruin 
the holy Prophet, either by casting him into the lion’s den 
to perish, or else by causing him to desist from the outward 
profession of worshipping God. They knew him to be so 
really in earnest that he would not redeem his life by so 
great an act of impiety, and hence they thought him doomed 
to death. We perceive in them great cunning ; but God met 
them on the other hand and aided his servant, as we shall see. 
Meanwhile their malice was the more detestable, since they 
desired to destroy Daniel by this very pretence. Although 
they did not worship Israel’s God, they knew the Prophet’s 
mind to be pious and straightforward, and then they expe- 
rienced the power of that God who was unknown to them. 


' The French editions of 1562 and 1569, a Geneva, translate the idio- 
matic phrase, susque deque illis est, by ce leur est tout wn ; “it is all one to 
them.”—Ed. 

* For W327, reges, properly signifies to “join and associate with.”— 
Calvin. 

* That is, they made a conspiracy, and approached the king.—Calvin. 

* That is, royal, or from the king.— Calvin. 


il aie cae aa - 5 ~ ti al ——— 
, a i 


: or 


CHAP. VI. 6, 7. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 355 


They did not condemn Daniel, nor blame the religion which 
he practised ; for, as I have said, their hatred of this man 
urged them to such cruelty that they rushed against the 
Almighty. They could not disguise from themselves the 
duty of worshipping God: they worshipped and adored un- 
known deities, and did not dare to condemn the worship of 
Israel’s God. We see how the devil fascinated them when 
they dared to impute this as a crime to the holy Prophet ; 
while we are ignorant of the manner in which their opinion 
was changed. 

Some suppose this was done because Darius could not 
bear with composure the glory of his son-in-law. For since 
he was an old man, and his relative in the flower of his age, 
he thought himself despised. Others think Darius to have 
been touched by secret emulation, and that he allowed his 
nobles to approach him for the purpose of deceiving the 
miserable and doting old man, and thus to throw dust in his 
eyes. But this conjecture does not seem to me sufficiently 
valid. Nor need I give myself much trouble in this matter, 
because it might happen that at the beginning of a new 
reign they wished to congratulate the king, and they fixed 
upon something new and unaccustomed, as we see often 
done by flatterers of royalty. Hence the old man might be 
deceived in this matter, since the monarchy was newly 
established. The king had hitherto ruled over none but 
Medes ; now Chaldeans, Assyrians, and many other nations 
were added to his sway. Such an addition might intoxicate 
him with vain-glory, and his nobles might think this a plau- 
sible reason for offering to him divine honours. This single 
reason seems to me sufficient ; I do not inquire further, but 
embrace what is probable and obvious at first sight. I 
defer the remainder till to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, as thou didst govern thy servant Daniel when 
honours were flowing around on all sides, and he was raised 
to the highest dignity, and preserve him safe in his integrity 
and innocency amidst the universal licentiousness,—Grant, I 
pray thee, that we may learn to restrain ourselves within that 


56 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXVIII 


om) 


moderation to which thou restrictest us. May we be content 
with our humble station and strive to ‘prove ourselyes inno- 
cent before thee and before those with whom we have to deal ; 


so that thy name may be glorified in us, and we may proceed 
under thy shelter against the malice of mankind. Whenever 
Satan besieges us on every side, and the wicked lay snares for 
us, and we are attacked by the fierceness of wild beasts, may we 
remain safe under thy protection, and even if we have to undergo 
a hundred deaths, may we learn to live and die to thee, and may 
thy name be glorified in us, through Christ our Lord.—Amen, 


Becture Twenty-eight). 


WE said, yesterday, that the nobles who laid snares against 
Daniel were inspired with great fury when they dared to dic- 
tate to the king the edict recorded by Daniel. It was an 
intolerable sacrilege thus to deprive all the deities of their 
honour ; yet he subscribed the edict, as we shall afterwards 
see, and thus put to the test the obedience of his people 
whom he had lately reduced under the yoke by the help of 
his son-in-law. There is no doubt of his wish to subdue the 
Chaldees, who up to that time had been masters; and we 
know how ferocity springs from the possession of authority. 
Since then the Chaldees had formerly reigned so far and 
wide, it was difficult to tame them and render them submis- 
sive, especially when they found themselves the slaves of 
those who had previously been their rivals. We know how 
many contests there were between them and the Medes; 
and although they were subdued in war, their spirits were 
not yet in subjection ; hence Darius desired to prove their 
obedience, and this reason induced him to give his consent. 
He does not purposely provoke the anger of the gods; but 
through respect for the men, he forgets the deities, and sub- 
stitutes himself in the place of the gods, as if it was in his 
power to attract the authority of heaven to himself! This, 
as I have said, was a grievous sacrilege. If any one could 
enter into the hearts of kings, he would find scarcely one in 
a hundred who does not despise everything divine. Al- 
though they confess themselves to enjoy their thrones by 
the grace of God, as we have previously remarked, yet they 





CHAP. VI. 8,9. 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


357 


wish to be adored in his stead. We now see how easily flat- 
terers persuade kings to do whatever appears likely to extol 


their magnificence. 


8. Now, O king, establish the de- 
cree, and sign the writing, that it be 
not changed, according to the law of 
the Medes and Persians, which alter- 
eth not. 

9. Wherefore king Darius signed 
the writing and the decree. 


It follows: 


8. Nune, rex, statue edictum, et 
obsigna scripturam, que non ad mu- 
tandum,' secundum legem Medorum 
et Persarum, que non transit. 


9. Itaque ipse rex Darius obsig- 
navit scripturam et edictum. 








Here, as I have said, it is sufficiently apparent how in- 
clined to fallacies are the minds of kings when they think 
they can benefit themselves and increase their own dignity. 
For the king did not dispute long with his nobles but sub- 
seribed the edict; for he thought it might prove useful to 
himself and his successors, if he.found the Chaldeans obedi- 
ent to himself and rather prepared to deny the existence of 
every god than to refuse whatever he commanded! As to 
the use of the word, some translate NTIDN, asra, by “ writ- 
ing,” deriving it from “ to cut wn,” as we know that all laws 
were formerly graven on tablets of brass ; but I interpret it 
_ more simply of their seeking from the king a signature of 
the writing, that is, he was to sign the edict after it was 
written. Which cannot be changed, they say—meaning, the 
edict is unchangeable and inviolable, according to the law of 
the Medes and Persians, which does not pass away—that is, 
which does not vanish, as also Christ says, Heaven and earth 
shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, or shall 
never become vain. (Matt. xxiv. 35; Mark xiii. 31.) As 
to his joining the Medes with the Persians, this arises from 
what we said before, since Cyrus and Darius reigned in com- 
mon as colleagues. Greater dignity was granted to Darius, 
while the power was in the hands of Cyrus ; besides, without 
controversy, his sons were heirs of either kingdom and of 
the Monarchy of.the East, unless when they began to make 
war on each other. When they say, the law of the Medes 
and Persians 7s immutable, this is worthy of praise in laws, 
and sanctions their authority ; thus they are strong and ob- 
tain their full effect. When laws are variable, many are 


1 That is, which is immutable.— Calvin. 


358 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXVIII. 


necessarily injured, and no private interest is stable unless 
the law be without variation ; besides, when there is a liberty 
of changing laws, license succeeds in place of justice. For 
those who possess the supreme power, if corrupted by gifts, 
promulgate first one edict and then another. Thus justice 
cannot flourish where change in the laws allows of so much 
license. But, at the same time, kings ought prudently to 
consider lest they promulgate any edict or law without grave 
and mature deliberation ; and secondly, kings ought to be 
careful lest they be counteracted by cunning and artful plots, 
to which they are often liable. Hence, constancy is praise- 
worthy in kings and their edicts, if only they are preceded 
by prudence and equity. But we shall immediately see how 
foolishly kings affect the fame of consistency, and how their 
obstinacy utterly perverts justice. But we shall see this di- 
rectly in its own place. It follows: 


10. Now when Daniel knew 10. Daniel autem ubi cognovit quod 
that the writing was signed, he obsignata esset scriptura, venit, vel, in- 
went into his house; and, his gressus est, in domum suam (fenestra 
windows being open in his autem aperte erant ei in ceenaculo suo 
chamber toward Jerusalem, he versus Jerusalem) et temporibus tribus 
kneeled upon his knees three in die,' inclinabat se super genua sua,” 
times a day, and prayed, and et precabatur, et confitebatur coram Deo 
gave thanks before his God, suo, quemadmodum fecerat a pristino 
as he did aforetime. illo tempore. 


Daniel now relates how he was clothed in the boldness of 
the Spirit of God to offer his life as a sacrifice to God, be- 
cause he knew he had no hope of pardon left, if his violation 
of the king’s edict had been discovered; he knew the king 
himself to be completely in shackles even if he wished to 
pardon him—as the event proved. If death had been before 
the Prophet’s eyes, he preferred meeting it fearlessly rather 
than ceasing from the duty of piety. We must remark that 
the internal worship of God is not treated here, but only the 
external profession of it. If Daniel had been forbidden to 
pray, this fortitude with which he was endued might seem 
necessary ; but many think he ran great risks without suffi- 
cient reason, since he increased the chance of death when 

1 That is, three times every day.—Calvin. 

2 The verb and the noun are from the same root; “he bent upon his 


knees or inclined himself.”— Calvin. 
® That is, as he was accustomed to do.— Calvin. 


Pica crt 


CHAP. VI. 10. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 359 


only outward profession was prohibited. But as Daniel here 
is not the herald of his own virtue, but the Spirit speaks 
through his mouth, we must suppose that this magnanimity 
in the holy Prophet was pleasing to God. And his libera- 
tion shewed how greatly his piety was approved, because he 
had rather lose his life than change any of his habits re- 
specting the worship of God. We know the principal sacri- 
fice which God requires, is to call upon his name. For we 


‘ , hereby testify him to be the author of all good things; next 


we shew forth a specimen of our faith ; then we fly to him, 
and cast all our cares into his bosom, and offer him our 
prayers. Since, therefore, prayer constitutes the chief part 
of our adoration and worship of God, it was certainly a 
matter of no slight moment when the king forbade any one 
to pray to God ; it was a gross and manifest denial of piety. 

And here, again, we collect how blind was the king’s pride 
when he could sign so impious and foul an edict! Then 
how mad were the nobles who, to ruin Daniel as far as they 
possibly could, endeavoured to abolish all piety, and draw 
down God from heaven! For what remains, when men 
think they can free themselves from the help of God, and 
pass him over with security? Unless he prop us up by his 
special aid, we know how entirely we should be reduced to 
nothing. Hence the king forbade any one to offer up any 
prayer during a whole month—that is, as I have said, he 
exacts from every one a denial of God! But Daniel could 
not obey the edict without committing an atrocious insult 
against God and declining from piety ; because, as I have 
said, God exacts this as a principal sacrifice. Hence it is not 
surprising if Daniel cordially opposed the sacrilegious edict. 
Now, with respect to the profession of piety, it was necessary 
to testify before men his perseverance in the worship of God. 
For if he had altered his habits at all, it would have been a 
partial abjuration ; he would not have said that he openly 
despised God to please Darius ; but that very difference in 
his conduct would have been a proof of perfidious defection. 
We know that God requires not only faith in the heart and 
the inward affections, but also the witness and confession of 
our piety. 


—s a =) oe ? a | 7 sa 
2» " 
} 


360 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXVIII. 


Daniel, therefore, was obliged to persevere in the holy 
practice to which he was accustomed, unless he wished to 
be the very foulest apostate! He was in the habit of praying 
with his windows open: hence he continued in his usual 
course, lest any one should object that he gratified his 
earthly king for a moment by omitting the worship of God, 
I wish this doctrine was now engraven on the hearts of all 
men as it ought to be; but this example of the Prophet is 
derided by many, not perhaps openly and glaringly, but still 
clearly enough, the Prophet seems to them too inconsiderate 
and simple, since he incurs great danger, rashly, and with- 
out any necessity. For they so separate faith from its out- 
ward confession as to suppose it can remain entire even if 
completely buried, and for the sake of avoiding the eross 
they depart a hundred times from its pure and sincere pro- 
fession. We must maintain, therefore, not only the duty of 
offering to God the sacrifice of prayer in our hearts, but 
that our open profession is also required, and thus the reality 
of our worship of God may clearly appear. 

I do not say that our hasty thoughts are to be instantly 
spread abroad, rendering us subject to death by the enemies 
of God and his gospel; but I say these things ought to be 
united and never to be separated, namely, faith and its pro- 
fession. For confession is of two kinds: first, the open and 
ingenuous testimony to our inward feelings; and secondly, 
the necessary maintenance of the worship of God, lest we 
shew any sign of a perverse and perfidious hypocrisy, and 
thus reject the pursuit of piety. With regard to the first 
kind, it, is neither always nor everywhere necessary to pro- 
fess our faith ; but the second kind ought to be perpetually 
practised, for it can never be necessary for us to pretend 
either disaffection or apostasy. For although Daniel did not 
send for the Chaldeans by the sound of a trumpet whenever 
he wished to pray, yet he framed his prayers and his vows 
in his couch as usual, and did not pretend to be forgetful of 
piety when he saw his faith put to the test, and the experi- 
ments made whether or not he would persevere in his con- 
staney. Hence he distinctly says, he went home, after being 
made acquainted with the signing of the decree. Had he 





CHAP. v1. 10. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 861 


been admitted to the council, he would doubtless have spoken 
out, but the rest of the nobles cunningly excluded him, lest 
he should interfere with them, and they thought the remedy 
would be too late, and utterly i in vain as soon as he per- 
ceived the certainty of his own death. Hence, had he been 
admitted to the king’s council, he would there have dis- 
charged his duty, and heartily interposed; but after the 
signing of the edict, and the loss of all opportunity for ad- 
vising the king, he retired to his house. 

We must here notice the impossibility of finding an excuse 
for the king's advisers, who purposely escape when they see 
that unanimity of opinion cannot be obtained, and think 
God will be satisfied in this way, if they only maintain per- 
fect silence. But no excuse can be admitted for such weak- 
ness of mind. And, doubtless, Daniel is unable to defend 
them by his example, since, as we have already said, he was 
excluded by the cunning and malice of the nobles from tak- 
ing his place among them as usual, and thus admonishing 
the king in time, He now says, His windows were open 
towards Jerusalem. The question arises, Whether it was 
necessary for Daniel thus to open his windows? For some 
one may object—he did this under a mistaken opinion; for 
if God fills heaven and earth, what signified his windows 
being open towards Jerusalem? There is no doubt that the 
Prophet used this device as a stimulus to his fervour in 
prayer. For when praying for the liberation of his people, 
he directed his eyes towards Jerusalem, and that sight be- 
came a stimulus to enflame his mind to greater devotion. 
Hence the opening of the Prophet’s windows has no refer- 
ence to God, as if he should be listened to more readily by 
having the open heaven between his dwelling and Judea ; 
but he rather considered himself and his natural infirmity. 
Now, if the holy Prophet, so careful in his prayers, needed 
this help, we must see whether or not our sloth in these days 
has need of more stimulants! Let. us learn, therefore, when 
we feel ourselves to be too sluggish and cold in prayer, to 
collect all the aids which can arouse our feelings and correct 
the torpor of which we are conscious. This, then, was the 
Prophet’s intention in opening his windows towards Jerusa- 





362 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXVIII. 


lem. Besides, he wished by this symbol to shew his domes- 
tics his perseverance, in the hope and expectation of the 
promised redemption. When, therefore, he prayed to God, 
he kept Jerusalem in sight, not that his eyes could penetrate 
to so distant a region, but he directed his gaze towards Jeru- 
salem to shew himself a stranger among the Chaldeans, 
although he enjoyed great power among them, and was 
adorned with great authority, and excelled in superior dig- 
nity. Thus he wished all men to perceive how he longed 
for the promised inheritance, although for a time he was in 
exile. This was his second reason for opening his windows. 

He says, He prayed three tumes a-day. This is worthy of 
observation, because, unless we fix certain hours in the day 
for prayer, it easily slips from our memory. Although, there- 
fore, Daniel was constant in pouring forth prayers, yet he 
enjoined upon himself the customary rite of prostrating him- 
self before God three times a-day. When we rise in the 
morning, unless we commence the day by praying to God, 
we shew a brutish stupidity, so also when we retire to rest, 
and when we take our food and at other times, as every one 
finds most advantageous to himself. For here God allows 
us liberty, but we ought all to feel our infirmities, and to 
apply the proper remedies. Therefore, for this reason, Daniel 
was in the habit of praying thrice. A proof of his fervour — 
is also added, when he says, He prostrated himself on his 
knees ; not that bending the knee is necessary in prayer, but 
while we need aids to devotion, as we have said, that pos- 
ture is of importance. First of all, it reminds us of our ina- 
bility to stand before God, unless with humility and rever- 
ence; then, our minds are better prepared for serious en- 
treaty, and this: symbol of worship is pleasing to God. 
Hence Daniel’s expression is by no means superfluous: He 
fell upon his knees whenever he wished to pray to God. He 
now says, he uttered prayers and confessions before God, or 
he praised God, for we must diligently notice how many in 
their prayers mutter to God. For although they demand 
either one thing or another, yet they are carried along by an 
immoderate impulse, and, as I have said, they are violent in 
their requests unless God instantly grants their petitions. 


\ 


— CC 
oe 
iy 


CHAP. v1.11. - COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL, 363 


This is the reason why Daniel joins praises or the giving of 
thanks with prayers; as, also, Paul exhorts us respecting 
both. Offer up, says he, your prayers to God, with thanks- 
giving, (Phil. iv. 6,) as if he had said, We cannot rightly offer 
vows and prayers to God unless when we bless his holy name, 
although he does not immediately grant our petitions. In 
Daniel’s case we must remark another circumstance: he had 
been an exile for a long time, and tossed about in many 
troubles and changes; still he celebrates God’s praises. 
Which of us is endued with such patience as to praise God, 
if afflicted with many trials through three or four years? 
Nay, scarcely a day passes without our passions growing 
warm and instigating us to rebel against God! Since Daniel, 
then, could persevere in praising God, when oppressed by so 
many sorrows, anxieties, and troubles—this was a remark- 
able proof of invincible patience. And, doubtless, he signi- 
fies a continuous act, by using the demonstrative pronoun 
rd, deneh, which refers to his ordinary habit—as he had 
done before, and from former times. By noticing the time, 
he marks, as I have said before, a perseverance, since he was 
not only accustomed to pray once or twice, but by a regular 
constancy he exercised himself in this duty of piety every 
day. It afterwards follows :— 


11. Then these men assembled, 11. Tune viri illi sociati sunt,! et 
and found Daniel praying and mak- invenerunt Danielem orantem et 
ing supplication before his God. precantem coram Deo suo. 


Here the nobles of Darius display their fraud when they 
observe Daniel, and unite in a conspiracy against him: for 
no other object but the death of Daniel could have induced 
them to dictate this edict. Hence they agree together, and 
find Daniel uttering prayers and supplications to his God. 
If Daniel had prayed with the slightest secrecy, he would 
not have been a victim to their snares; but he did not refuse 
the prospect of death. He knew the object of the edict, and 
expected the arrival of the nobles. We see, then, how wil- 
lingly he submitted to instant death, and for no other pur- 
pose than to retain the pure worship of God, together with 
its outward profession. Go to, now, ye who desire to shield 


: 1 Or, “ collected,” as others translate.—Calvin. 


364 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXVIII. 
your perfidy, pretending that you ought not to incur danger 
rashly, and when the wicked surround you on all sides! You 
become cautious lest you should rashly throw away your 
lives! For Daniel, in their opinion, was to be blamed for 
too great simplicity and folly, since he willingly and know- 
ingly encountered certain danger. But we have already 
said, he could not escape from their snare without indirectly 
revolting from God, for he might have been immediately re- 
proached—Why do you desist from your accustomed habit ? 
Why do you close your windows? Why do you not dare to 
pray to your God? It appears, then, you regard the king 
of more importance than the reverence and fear of God, 
Because God’s honour would have been thus sullied, Daniel, 
as we have already seen, spontaneously offered himself 
to death as a sacrifice. We are taught, also, by this ex- 
ample, how snares are prepared for the sons of God, how- 
ever circumspectly they act, and however soberly they con- 
duct themselves. But they ought to conduct themselves so 
prudently as neither to be too cunning nor too anxious, that 
is, they should not regard their own security so as in the 
meantime to forget God’s requirements, and the precious- 
ness of his name, and the necessity of a confession of faith 


in the proper place and time. 


12. Then they came near, and 
spake before the king concerning the 
king’s decree; Hast thou not signed 
a decree, that every man that shall 
ask a petition of any god or man 
within thirty days, save of thee, O 
king, shall be cast into the den of 
lions? The king answered and said, 
The thing is true, according to the 
law of the Medes and Persians, 
which altereth not. 


Now the king’s nobles approach the king as conquerors, 


It now follows: 


12. Tune accesserunt et dixe- 
runt! coram rege super edicto regio, 
An non edictum obsignasti, ne 
quisquam homo peteret ab ullo 
deo vel homine, usque ad tri- 
ginta dies hos, preterquam abs 
te, rex,” projiceretur in speluncam 
leonum? Respondit rex et dixit, 
Firmus est sermo secundum legem 
Medorum et Persarum, que non 
transit. ‘ 


but they do so cunningly ; for they do not openly say any- 

thing about Daniel, whom they knew to be a favourite with 

the king ; but they repeat their previous assertion con- 

cerning the impossibility of changing the edict, since the 
1 And they have said.—Calvin. 


* It is preferable to translate it “that any man should ask from any 
god or man, for thirty days, except of thee, O king.” —Calvin. 


CHAP. VI. 12: COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 865 


law of the Medes and Persians is inviolable and cannot be 
rendered void. Again, therefore, as far as they possibly can, 
they sanction that edict, lest the king should afterwards be 
free, or dare to retract what he had once commanded. We 
must mark the cunning with which they indirectly cireum- 
vent the king, and entangle him, by preventing the change 
of a single word; They come, therefore, and discourse con- 
cerning the royal edict. They do not mention the name of 
Daniel, but dwell upon the royal decree, so as to bind the 
king more firmly. It follows—The king answered, The dis- 
course is true. We here see how kings desire praise for 
consistency, but they do not perceive the difference between 
consistency and obstinacy. For kings ought to reflect upon 
their own decrees, to avoid the disgrace of retracting what 
they have hastily promulgated. If anything has escaped 
them without consideration, both prudence and equity re- 
quire them to correct their errors; but when they have 
trampled upon all regard for justice, they desire every 
inconsiderate command to be strictly obeyed! This is the 
height of folly, and we ought not to sanction a perseverance 
in such obstinacy, as we have already said. But the rest 
to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since thou hast reconciled us to thyself by 
the precious blood of thy Son, that we may not be our own, 
but devoted to thee in perfect obedience, and may consecrate 
ourselves entirely to thee: May we offer our bodies and souls 
in sacrifice, and be rather prepared to suffer a hundred deaths 
than to decline from thy true and sincere worship. Grant us, 
especially, to exercise ourselves in prayer, to fly to thee every 
moment, and to commit ourselves to thy Fatherly care, that 
thy Spirit may govern us to the end. Do thou defend and 
sustain us, until we are collected into that heavenly kingdom 
which thy only-begotten Son has prepared for us by his blood.— 
Amen, . 





366 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXIX. 


Lecture Twenty-ninth. 


We began yesterday to explain Daniel’s narrative of the 
calumny invented against him before King Darius. The 
nobles of the kingdom, as we have said, used cunning in 
their interview with the king; because if they had begun 
with Daniel, the king might have broken his word. But 
they dwell upon the royal decree ; they shew the imminence 
of the danger, unless the authority of all the king’s decrees 
was upheld. By this artifice we see how they obtained their 
object ; for the king confirms their assertion respecting the 
wickedness of rendering abortive what had been promulgated 
in the king’s name. For kings are pleased with their own 
greatness, and wish their own pleasure to be treated as an 
oracle. That edict was detestable and impious by which 
Darius forbade entreaties to be offered to any deity ; yet he 
wished it to remain in force, lest his majesty should be 
despised by his subjects. Meanwhile, he does not perceive 
the consequences which must ensue. Hence we are taught 
by this example, that no virtue is so rare in kings as mode- 
ration, and yet none is more necessary ; for the more they 
have in their power, the more it becomes them to be cautious 
lest they indulge their lusts, while they think it lawful to 


desire whatever pleases them. 


13. Then answered they, and said 
before the king, That Daniel, which 
is of the children of the captivity of 
Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, 
nor the decree that thou hast signed, 
but maketh his petition three times 
a-day. 


It now follows : 


13. Tune loquuti sunt, et dixe- 
runt coram rege: Daniel, qui est 
ex filiis captivitatis Jehudah, non 
posuit super te, rex, sensum,! neque 
ad edictum quod obsignasti: et vici- 
bus tribus in die precatur petitionem 
suam.? 


Now, when Daniel’s calumniators see that King Darius 


had no wish to defend his cause, they open up more freely 
what they had previously conceded ; for, as we have said, if 
they had openly accused Daniel, their accusation could have 
been instantly and completely refuted ; but after this senti- 
ment had been expressed to the king, their statement is final, 


1 Or, has not added his own sense, or given his mind to thee.—Culvin. 
* That is, prays according to his custom, or as usual_—Calvin. 


CHAP. VI. 13. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 367 


since by the laws of the Medes and Persians a king’s decree 
ought to be self-acting ; hence, after this is accomplished, 
they then come to the person. Daniel, say they, one of the 
captwes of Judah, has not obeyed thy will, O king, nor the 
decree which thou hast signed. By saying, “ Daniel, one of 
the Jewish captives,” they doubtless intended to magnify 
his crime and to render him odious. For if any Chaldean 
had dared to despise the king’s edict, his rashness would not 
have been excused. But now when Daniel, who was lately 
a slave and a Chaldean captive, dares to despise the king’s 
command, who reigned over Chaldea by the right of con- 
quest, this seemed less tolerable still. The effect is the 
same as if they had said, “He was lately a captive among thy 
slaves; thou art supreme lord, and his masters to whom he 
was subject are under thy yoke, because thou art their con- 
queror ; he is but a captive and a stranger, a mere slave, 
and yet he rebels against thee!” We see then how they 
desired to poison the king’s mind against him by this allu- 
sion, He is one of the captives! The words are very harmless 
in themselves, but they endeavour to sting their monarch in 
every way, and to stir up his wrath against Daniel. He does 
not direct his mind to thee, O king ; that is, he does not reflect 
upon who you are, and thus he despises thy majesty and 
the edict which thow hast signed. This is another enlarge- 
ment: Daniel, therefore, did not direct his mind erther to 
thee or to thy edict ; and wilt thou bear this? Next, they 
recite the deed itself—he prays three times a-day. This 
would have been the simple narrative, Daniel has not obeyed 
thy command in praying to his own God; but, as I have said, 
they exaggerate his crime by accusing him of pride, contempt, 
and insolence. We see, therefore, by what artifices Daniel 
was oppressed by these malicious men. It now follows: 

14. Then the king, when he 14. Tune rex, postquam sermo- 
heard these words, was sore dis- nem audivit, valde tristatus est,' 


pleased with himself, and set his in se: etad Danielem apposuit cor, 
heart on Daniel to deliver him; and ad ipsum servandum: et usque ad 


1 Others translate “disturbed;” others again, “was very much displeased” 
or grieved, for WN, bash, signifies to grieve.—Calvin. 
_? There is a change in the letters here; for $3, bel, is put for 3, leb ; 
here it means, “ he applied his heart.”—Calvin. 


368 


he laboured till the going down of 
the sun to deliver him. 

15. Then these men assembled 
unto the king, and said unto the 
king, Know, O king, that the law of 
the Medes and Persians is, That no 
decree nor statute which the king 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 





LECT, XXIX. 


occasum solis fuit solicitus ad ipsum 
eruendum,} 

15. Tune conglobati sunt viri 
illi? ad regem, et dixerunt, Scias, 
rex, quod lex Medis et Persis est, 
ut omne edictum et statutum quod 
rex statuerit, non mutetur. 


establisheth may be changed. 


In the first place, Daniel recites that the king was dis- 
turbed, when he perceived the malice of his nobles which had 
formerly escaped him ; for their intention and their object 
had never occurred to him; he perceives himself deceived 
and entrapped, and hence he is disturbed. Here again we 
are taught how cautiously kings ought to avoid depraved 
counsels, since they are besieged on every side by perfidious 
men, whose only object is to gain by their false representa- 
tions, and to oppress their enemies, and those from whom 
they hope for booty or who may favour their evil courses. 
Because so many snares surround kings, they ought to be 
the more cautious in providing against cunning. They are 
too late in acknowledging themselves to have been over- 
reached, when no remedy is left, partly through fear, and 
partly through wishing to consult their own credit ; and they 
prefer offending God to suffering any outward disrespect 
from men. Since, therefore, kings consider their own 
honour so sacred, they persevere in their evil undertakings, 
even when their conscience accuses them; and even if jus- 
tice itself were to appear visibly before them, yet this 
restraint would not be sufficient to withhold them, when 
ambition urges them in the opposite direction, and they are 
unwilling to lose the slightest portion of their reputation 
among men. The case of Darius supplies us with an exam- | 
ple of this kind. 

First of all, it is said, He was sorrowful when he heard these 
words, and was anxious till the setting of the sun about the 
way of snatching Daniel from death. He wished this to be 
done, if his own honour were sound and safe, and his nobles 


1 Or, to deliver him; that is, he desired to snatch him away.—Calvin. 

* That is, conspired together, as if they approached the king in a body, 

. mer the greater terror ; “ they assembled themselves therefore.” — 
alvin. 








CHAP. VI. 15. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 369 


were satisfied. But on the one side, he fears disunion if 
his nobles should conspire to produce disturbance ; and on 
the other side, he is moved by a foolish fear, because he does 
not wish to incur the charge of levity which awaited him, 
and hence he is vanquished and obeys the lusts of the wicked. 
Although, therefore, he laboured till the setting of the sun to 
free Daniel, yet that perverse shame prevailed of which I 
have spoken, and then the fear of dissension. For when we 
do not lean upon God’s help, we are always compelled to 
vacillate, although anxious to be honestly affected. Thus 
Pilate wished to liberate Christ, but was terrified by the 
threats of the people, when they denounced against him the 
displeasure of Cesar. (John xix.12.) And no wonder, since 
faith is alone a certain and fixed prop on which we may lean 
while fearlessly discharging our duty, and thus overcome all 
fears. But when we want confidence, we are, as I have said, 
sure to be changeable. Hence Darius, through fear of a con- 
spiracy of his nobles against himself, permitted Daniel to be 
an innocent sufferer from their cruelty. Then that false 
shame is added which I have mentioned, because he was 
unwilling to appear without consideration, by suddenly re- 
voking his own edict, as it was a law with the Medes and 
Persians that whatever proceeded from kings was inviolable ! 
Daniel now states this. He says, those men assembled to- 
gether ; when they saw the king hesitate and doubt, they 
became fierce and contentious with him. When it is said 
they meet together, this relates to their inspiring him with 
fear. They say, Know, O king! He knew it well enough, 
and they need not instruct him in any unknown matter, but 
they treat him inathreatening manner. “What? dost thou 
not see how utterly the royal name will be hereafter deprived 
of its authority if he violates thine edict with impunity ? 
Will you thus permit yourself to become a laughingstock ? 
Finally, they intimate, that he would not be king unless he 
revenged the insult offered him by Daniel in neglecting his 
commandment. Know, therefore, O king, that the Persians 
and Medes—he was himself king of the Medes, but it is just 
as if they said, What kind of rumour will be spread through 
all thy subject provinces ; for thou knowest how far this pre- 
VOL I. 2A 


| 


ee 


370 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXIX. 


vails among the Medes and Persians—the king must not 
change his edict. If, therefore, thou shouldst set such an 
example, will not all thy subjects instantly rise against thee ? 
and wilt thou not be contemptible to them?’ We see, then, 
how the satraps rage against their king, and frighten him 
from any change of counsel. And they also join the edict 
with the statute, which the king had resolved upon, with 
the view of impressing upon him the necessity of not chang- 
ing a single decree which he had often and repeatedly sane- 
tioned. It follows: 


16. Then the king commanded, 16. Tune rex loquutus est,’ et 
and they brought Daniel, and cast adduxerunt Danielem, et projecerunt 
him into the den oflions. Nowthe eum infoveam leonum. Respondit 
king spake, and said unto Daniel, rex, et dixit Danieli, Deus tuus quem 
Thy God, whom thou servest con- tu colis ipsum jugiter,* ipse liberabit 
tinually, he will deliver thee. te.® 


The king, as we have said, frightened by the denunciation 
of the nobles, condemns Daniel to death. And hence we 
gather the reward which kings deserve in reference to their 
pride, when they are compelled to submit with servility to 
their flatterers. How was Darius deceived by the cunning 
of his nobles! For he thought his authority would be 
strengthened, by putting the obedience of all men to this 
test of refusing all prayer to any god or man for a whole 
month. He thought he should become superior to both gods 
and men, if all his subjects really manifested obedience of 
this kind. We now see how obstinately the nobles rise 
against him, and denounce ultimate revolt, unless he obey 
them. We see that when kings take too much upon them- 
selves, how they are exposed to infamy, and become the 
veriest slaves of their own servants! This is common enough 
with earthly princes; those who possess their influence and 
favour applaud them in all things and even adore them ; 
they offer every kind of flattery which can propitiate their 
favour ; but, meanwhile, what freedom do their idols enjoy ? 
They do not allow them any authority, nor any intercourse 
with the best and most faithful friends, while they are 


1 That is, he decreed or commanded.— Calvin. 

* The pronoun is superfluous.— Calvin. 

* Or, if we receive it in the manner of a prayer—“may he deliver 
thee ”— Calvin. 


oe 





‘CHAP. VI. 16. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 371 


watched by their own guards. Lastly, if they are compared 
with the wretches who are confined in the closest dungeon, 
not one who is thrust down into the deepest pit, and watched 
by three or four guards, is not freer than kings themselves! 
But, as I have said, this is God’s most just vengeance ; since, 
when they cannot contain themselves in the ordinary rank 
and station of men, but wish to penetrate the clouds and 
become on a level with God, they necessarily become a 
laughingstock. Hence they become slaves of all their at- 
tendants, and dare not utter anything with freedom, and are 
without friends, and are afraid to summon their subjects to 
their presence, and to intrust either one or another with their 
wishes. Thus slaves rule the kingdoms of the world, because 


_ kings assume superiority to mortals. King Darius is an in- 


stance of this when he sent for Daniel, and commanded him 
to be thrown into the den of lions; his nobles force this from 
him, and he unwillingly obeys them. But we should notice 
the reason. He had lately forgotten his own mortality, he 
had desired to deprive the Almighty of his sway, and as it 
were to drag him down from heaven! For if God remains 
in heaven, men must pray to him; but Darius forbade any 
one from even daring to utter a prayer; hence as far as he 
could he deprived the Almighty of his power. Now he is 
compelled to obey his own subjects, although they exercise 
an almost disgraceful tyranny over him. 

Daniel now adds—the king said this to him, Thy God, whom 
thou servest, or worshippest, farthfully, he will deliver thee ! 
This word may be read in the optative mood, as we have 
said. There is no doubt that Darius really wished this; 


but it may mean, Thy God whom thou worshippest will de- 


liver thee—as if he had said, * Already Iam not my own 
master, I am here tossed about by the blast of a tempest ; 
my nobles compel me to this deed against my will ; I, there- 
fore, now resign thee and thy life to God, because it is not 
in my power to deliver thee ;” as if this excuse lightened his 
own crime by transferring to God the power of preserving 
Daniel. Thisreason causes some to praise the piety of King 
Darius ; but as I confess his clemency and humanity to be 
manifest in this speech, so it is clear that he had not a grain 


EE ee es eee ae 


— eR me Re 


372 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXIX. 


of piety when he thus wished to adorn himself in the spoils 
of deity! For although the superstitious do not seriously 
fear God, yet they are restrained by some dread of him; 
but he here wished to reduce the whole divinity to nothing, 
What sort of piety was this? The clemency of Darius may 
therefore be praised, but his sacrilegious pride can by no 
means be excused. Then why did he act so humanely 
towards Daniel? Because he had found him a faithful ser- 
vant, and the regard which rendered him merciful arose from 
this peculiarity. He would not have manifested the same 
disposition towards others. Ifa hundred or a thousand Jews 
had been dragged before his tribunal, he would carelessly 
have condemned them all because they had disobeyed the 
edict ! Hence he was obstinately impious and cruel. He 
spared Daniel for his own private advantage, and thus em- 
braced him with his favour; but in praising his humanity, 
we do not perceive any sign of piety in him. But he says, 
the God whom thou worshippest, he will deliver thee, because 
he had formerly known Daniel’s prophecy concerning the 
destruction of the Chaldean monarchy ; hence he is con- 
vinced, how Israel’s God is conscious of all things, and rules 
everything by his will; yet, in the meantime, he neither 
worships him nor suffers others to do so; for as far as he 
could he had excluded God from his own rights. In thus 
attributing to God the power of delivering him, he does not 
act cordially ; and hence his impiety is the more detestable, 
when he deprives God of his rights while he confesses him 
to be the true and only one endued with supreme power ; 
and though he is but dust and ashes, yet he substitutes him- 
self in his place! It now follows,— : 

17. And a stone was brought, and laid 17. Ed adductus fuit lapis 
upon the mouth of the den; andtheking unus et positus super os spelun- 
sealed it with his own signet, and with cx: et obsignavit eum rexan- 
the signet of his lords; that the pur- nulo suo et annulo procerum 


pose might not be changed concerning suorum, ne mutaretur placitum 
Daniel. in Daniele.' 


1 That is, “concerning Daniel.” Those who render it “ against,” as if 
the king had purposely wished to oppose their violence, pervert the whole 
sense, since it was doubtless done at their instigation, lest the king should 
secretly provide for his liberation. —Culvin. 


ashe 
iil 


CHAP. VI. 17. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 373 


- There is no doubt that God’s counsel provided that the 
nobles should seal the stone with their own rings, and thus 
close the mouth of the cave, and render the miracle more 
illustrious. For when the king approached on the morrow, 
the rings were all entire, and the seals all unbroken. Thus 
the preservation of this servant of God was manifestly by 
the aid of heaven and not by the art of men. Hence we see 
how boldly the king’s nobles had compelled him to perform 
their pleasure. For he might seem deprived of all royal 
power when he delivered up to them a subject dear and 
faithful to himself, and ordered him to be thrown into the 
lions’ den. They are not content with this compliance of the 
king ; they extort another point from him—the closing up 
of the mouth of the cave ; and then they all seal the stone, 
lest any one should release Daniel. We see, then, when 
once liberty has been snatched away, all is over, especially 
when any one has become a slave by his own faults, and has 
attached himself to the counsels of the ungodly. For, at 
first, such slavery will not prevail as to induce a man to 
do everything which he is ordered, since he seems to be free ; 
but when he has given himself up to such slavery as I have 
described, he is compelled to transgress not once or twice, 
but constantly and without ceasing. For example, if any 
one swerves from his duty through either the fear of man or 
flattery, or any other depraved affection, he will grant vari- 
ous things, not only when asked, but when urgently com- 
pelled. But when he has once submitted to the loss of 
freedom, he will be compelled, as I have already said, to 
consent to the most shameful deeds at the nod of any one. 
If any teacher or pastor of the Church should turn from the 
right path through the influence of ambition, the author of 
his declension will come to him again and say, What! do you 
dare to refuse me? Did I not obtain from you, yesterday 
or the day before, whatever I wished? Thus he will be 
compelled to transgress a second time in favour of the per- 
son to whom he has joined himself, and will also be forced 
to repeat the transgression continually. Thus princes also, 
who are not free agents through being under the tyranny 
of others, if they permit themselves to be overcome contrary 


374 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXIX. 
to their conscience, lay aside all their authority, and are 
drawn aside in all directions by the will of their subjects. 
This example, then, is proposed to us in the case of King 
Darius, who after inflicting unjust punishment upon Daniel, 
adds this, He must be enclosed in the cave, and then, the stone 
must be sealed,—and for what object ?—lest the doom should 
be changed ; meaning, he did not dare to attempt anything 
in Daniel’s favour. We see, then, how the king submitted 
to the greatest disgrace, because his nobles had no confi- 
dence in him; they refused to trust him when he ordered 
Daniel to be thrown into the lions’ den, but they exacted a 
guarantee against his liberation, and would not suffer him 
to attempt anything. We thus see how disgracefully they 
withdrew their confidence from their king; next they use 
their authority against him, lest he should dare to remove 
the stone which had been sealed, unless he would incur the 
charge of falsehood by corrupting the public signatures, and 
of deception by falsifying the public documents. Hence 
this passage admonishes us against prostituting ourselves in 
slavery to the lust of men. Let every one serve his nearest 
neighbours as far as charity will allow and as custom de- 
mands. Meanwhile, no one ought to permit himself to be 
turned aside in different directions contrary to his conscience, 
because when he loses his free agency, he will be compelled 
to endure many affronts and to obey the foulest commands. 
This we see exemplified in the case of the panders to the 
avarice, or ambition, or cruelty of princes; for when once 
they are under the power of such men, they are most miser- 
able victims ; they cannot avoid the most extreme necessities, 
they become wretched slaves, and call down against them- 
selves, a hundred times over, the anger of both God and 
man. It now follows,— 


18, Then the king went to his 18. Tune profectus est rex in 
palace, and passed the night fasting: palatium suum, et pernoctavit in 
neither were instruments of musick jejunio, jejwnus, et instrumenta mu- 
brought before him; and his sleep  sica! non fuerint allata coram ipso,’ 
went from him. et somnus etiam discessit ab eo. 


' Others translate “ banquet” or “supper ;” but this does not agree, be- 
cause he first said the king passed the night fasting, therefore a different 
interpretation is more suitable, namely, “ musical instruments.”—Calvin. 

* And thus all joys and delights ceased. Calvin. 





ee, 


CHAP. VL.18. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 375 


Here Daniel relates the tardy repentance of the king, be- 
cause although he was in the greatest grief, yet he did not 
correct his fault. And this occurs to many who are not 
hardened by contempt of God and their own depravity ; 
they are drawn aside by others, and are dissatisfied with 
their own vices, while they still indulge in them. Would 
that the examples of this evil were rare in the world! but 
they occur everywhere before our eyes. Darius therefore is 
here proposed to us as intermediate between the ungodly 
and the wicked—the righteous and the holy. The wicked 
do not hesitate to stir up the Almighty against them, and 
after they have dismissed all fears and all shame, they revel 
in their own licentiousness. Those who are ruled by the 
fear of God, although they sustain hard contests with the 
flesh, yet impose a check upon themselves, and bridle their 
perverse affections. Others are between the two, as I have 
said, not yet obstinate in their malice, and not quite satisfied 
with their corruptions, and still they follow them as if bound 
to them by ropes. Such was Darius; for he ought con- 
stantly to have repelled the calumny of his nobles; but 
when he saw himself so entangled by them, he ought to 
have opposed them manfully, and to have reproved them for 
so abusing their influence over him ; yet he did not act thus, 
but rather bent before their fury. Meanwhile he bewails in 
his palace, and abstains from all food and delicacies. He 
thus shews his displeasure at the evil conduct at which 
he connived. We see then how ineffectual it is for our own 
conscience to smite us when we sin, and to cause us sorrow 
for our faults; we must go beyond this, so that sorrow may 
lead us on to repentance, as also Paul teaches us. (2 Cor. vil. 
10.) Darius, then, had reduced himself to difficulties ; while 
he bewails his fault, he does not attempt to correct it. ‘This 
was, indeed, the beginning of repentance, but nothing more ; 
and when he feels any compunction, this stirs him up and 
allows him neither peace nor comfort. This lesson, then, we 
are to learn from Daniel’s narrative of King Darius passing the 
whole of that night in wailing. It follows afterwards,— 

19. Then the king arose very early 19. Tune rex in aurora,! surrexit 


1 That is, “in the morning.”—Calvin. 


376 


in the morning, and went in haste 
unto the den of lions. 

20. And when he came to the den, 
he cried with a lamentable voice un- 
to Daniel: and the king spake and 
said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of 
the living God, is thy God, whom thou 
servest continually, able to deliver 
thee from the lions? 


COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 


ot 
ro 


LECT. XXIX. 


cum illucesceret, et in festinatione,' 
ad speluncam leonum venit. 

20. Et cum appropinquasset ad 
foveam, ad Danielem in voce tristi, 
aut, lugubri, clamavit, loquutus est 
rex, et dixit Danieli, Daniel serve 
Dei viventis, Deus tuus quem tu colis 
ipsum jugiter, an potuit ad servan- 
dum te a leonibus 74 


Here the king begins to act with a little more consistency, 
when he approaches the pit. He was formerly struck down 
by fear as to yield to his nobles, and to forget his royal 
dignity by delivering himself up to them as a captive. But 
now he neither dreads their envy nor the perverseness of 
their discourse. He approaches the lions’ den early in the 
morning, says he,—that is, at dawn, before it was light, 
coming during the twilight, and in haste. Thus we see him 
suffering under the most bitter grief, which overcomes all 
his former fears ; for he might still have suffered from fear, 
through remembrance of that formidable denunciation,— 
Thou wilt no longer enjoy thy supreme command, unless 
thou dost vindicate thine edict from contempt! But, as 1 
have said, grief overcomes all fear. And yet we are unable 
to praise either his piety or his humanity ; because, though 
he approaches the cave and calls out, “ Daniel!” with a 
lamentable voice, still he is not yet angry with his nobles 
till he sees the servant of God perfectly safe. Then his 
spirits revive, as we shall see; but as yet he persists in his 
weakness, and is ina middle place between the perverse 
despisers and the hearty worshippers of God, who follow with 
an upright intention what they know to be just. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty Father, since thou shewest us, by the example of 
thy servant Daniel, how we ought to persevere with consistency 
in the sincere worship of thee, and thus proceed towards true 
greatness of mind, that we may truly devote ourselves to thee. 
May we not be turned aside in any direction through the lust of 
men, but may we persist in our holy calling, and so conquer all 
dangers, and arrive at length at the fruit of victory—that happy 
immortality which is laid up for us in heaven, through Christ our 
Lord.—Amen. 


' That is, “ hastily.’"—-Calvin. * That is, could he preserve thee?—Calvin. 


CHAP. VI.19,20. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 377 


Lecture Thirticth, 


Want of time compelled me to break off our last Lecture 
at the point where Daniel relates how the king approached 
the cave. Now he reports his words,—O Daniel, servant of 
the living God ! thy God whom thow worshippest constantly, 
has he been able to deliver thee ? says he. Darius declares 
the God of Israel to be the living One. But if there is a 
living God, he excludes all those imaginary deities whom 
men fancy for themselves by their own ingenuity. For it is 
necessary that deity should be one, and this principle is 
acknowledged by even the profane. However men may be 


deluded by their dreams, yet they all confess the impossi- 


bility of having more gods than one. They distort, indeed, 
God’s character, but they cannot deny his unity. When 
Darius uttered this praise of the God of Israel, he confesses 
all other deities to be mere fictions ; but he shews how, as 
I have said, the profane hold the first principle, but after- 
wards allow it to escape entirely from their thoughts. This 
passage does not prove, as some allege, the real conversion 
of King Darius, and his sincere adoption of true piety ; for 
he always worshipped his own idols, but thought it sufficient 
if he raised the God of Israel to the highest rank. But, as 
we know, God cannot admit a companion, for he is jealous 
of his own glory. (Isaiah xlii. 8.) It was too cold, then, 
for Darius simply to acknowledge the God whom Daniel 
worshipped to be superior to all others; because where God 
reigns, all idols must of necessity be reduced to nothing ; as 
also it is said in the Psalms, Let God reign, and let the gods 


of all nations fall before him. Darius then proceeded so far 


as to devote himself to the true and only God, but was com- 
pelled to pay the greatest respect to Israel’s God. Mean- 
while he always remained sunk in his own superstitions to 
which he had been accustomed. 

He afterwards adds, Thy God, whom thow worshippest con- 
tinually, could he free thee from the ions? He here speaks 
doubtfully, as unbelievers do, who seem to have some ground 
for hope, but no firm or sure persuasion in their own minds. 


> a 
a ah 

, 

i 


378 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXX, 
I suppose this invocation to be natural, since a certain secret 
instinct naturally impels men to fly to God; for although ~ 
scarcely one in twenty leans upon God’s word, yet all men 
call upon God occasionally. They wish to discover whether 
God desires to assist them and to aid them in their neces- 
sities ; meanwhile, as I have said, there is no firm persuasion 
in their hearts, which was the state of the mind of King 
Darius: Could God deliver thee ? says he; as if God’s power ~ 
could possibly be doubted! If he had said, Has God de- 
livered thee? this would have been tolerable. For God was 
not bound by any law to be always snatching his people 
from death, since, we very well know, this rests entirely with 
his good pleasure. When, therefore, he permits his people 
to suffer under the lusts of the impious, his power is by no 
means diminished, since their liberation depends upon his 
mere will and pleasure. His power, therefore, ought by no 
means to be called in question. We observe, that Darius 
was never truly converted, and never distinctly acknowledged 
the true and only God, but was seized with a blind fear, 
which, whether he would or not, compelled him to attribute 
the supreme honour to Israel’s God. And this was not an 
ingenuous confession, but was rather extorted from him. It 


now follows :— 


21. Then said Daniel unto the 
king, O king, live for ever. 

22. My God hath sent his angel, 
and hath shut the lions’ mouths, 
that they have not hurt me: foras- 
much as before him innocency was 
found in me; and also before thee, 
O king, have I done no hurt. 


21. Tune Daniel cum rege loquu- 
tus est, rex, in eternum vive. 

22. Deus meus misit angelum 
suum, et conclusit os leonum, et non 
nocuerunt mihi: quoniam coram 
ipso innocentia,' invenfa est in me: 
atque atiam coram te, rex, pravita- 
tem non commisi, 


Here Daniel answers the king moderately and softly, 
although he had been cast into the cave by his command. 
He might have deservedly been angry and expostulated 
with him, because he had been so impiously deserted by him, 
for King Darius had found him a faithful servant, and had 
used his services for his own advantage. When he saw him- 
self oppressed by unjust calumnies, the king did not take his 
part so heartily as he ought; and at length, being overcome 
by the threats of his nobles, he ordered Daniel to be cast 


1 Or, integrity. —Calvin. 


CHAP. VI.21,22. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 379 


into the pit. Daniel might, as I have said, have complained 
of the king’s cruelty and perfidy. He does not do this, but 
is silent concerning this injury, because his deliverance 
would sufficiently magnify the glory of God. The holy Pro- 
phet desired nothing else, except the king’s welfare, which 
he prays for. Although he uses the ordinary phrase, yet he 
speaks from his heart, when he says, O king, live for ever ! 
that is, may God protect thy life and bless thee perpetually. 
Many salute their kings and even their friends in this way 
through mere form; but there is no doubt that Daniel heartily 
wished the king the enjoyment of long life and happiness. 
He afterwards adds, My God, says he, sent his angel, and 
shut the lions’ mouths! Thus we see that Daniel openly 
assigns to angels the duty of rendering assistance, while the 
whole power remains in the hands of God himself. He says, 
therefore, that he was freed by the hand and assistance of 
an angel, but shews how the angel was the agent and not 
the author of his safety. God, therefore, says he, sent his 
angel. We have often seen how indistinctly the Chaldeans 
spoke when mentioning the Deity; they called their deities 
holy, but Daniel here ascribes the entire glory to God alone. 
He does not bring forward a multitude of deities according 
to the prevalent opinion among the profane. He puts pro- 
minently forward the unity of God; and then he adds the 
presence of angels as assisting God’s servants, shewing how 
they perform whatever is enjoined upon them. Thus the 
whole praise of their salvation remains with the one God, 
since angels do not assist whomsoever they please, and are 
not moved by their own will, but solely in obedience to God’s 
commands. ; 

We must now notice what follows: God had shut the lions’ 
mouths. For by these words the Prophet shews how lions 
and the most cruel beasts are in the hands of God, and are 
restrained by his secret curb, so that they can neither rage 
nor commit any injury unless by God’s permission. We may 
thus learn that savage beasts are only so far injurious to us 
as God may permit them to humble our pride. Meanwhile, 
we may perceive that no beast is so cruel as to injure us by 
either his claws er his teeth, unless God give him the reins. 


, |” “=e 
= | 
, 


380 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXX. 


And this instruction is worthy of especial notice, since we 
tremble at the least danger, even at the noise of a falling leaf, 
As we are necessarily exposed to many dangers on all 
sides, and surrounded by various forms of death, hence we 
should be harassed by wretched anxiety unless this principle 
supported us; not only is our life under God’s protection, 
but nothing can injure us while he directs everything by his 
will and pleasure. And this principle ought to be extended 
to the devils themselves, and to impious and wicked men, for 
we know the devil to be always anxious to destroy us, like a 
roaring lion, for he prowls about seeking whom he may de- 
vour, as Peter says in his First Epistle, (v. 8.) For we see 
how all the impious plot for our destruction continually, and 
how madly they are inflamed against us. But God, who can 
close the lion’s mouth, will also both restrain the devil and 
all the wicked from hurting any one without his permission. 
Experience also shews us how the devil and all the impious 
are controlled by him, for we should perish every moment 
unless he warded off by his opposing influence the number- 
less evils which ever hang over us. We ought to perceive 
how the singular protection of God preserves us in daily 
safety amidst the ferocity and madness of our foes. Daniel 
says he suffered no loss of any kind, because before God his 
righteousness was found in him. These words signify that 
his preservation arose from God wishing to vindicate his own 
glory and worship which he had commanded in his law. The 
Prophet does not here boast in his own righteousness, but 
rather shews how his deliverance arose from God’s wishing 
to testify by a certain and clear proof his approval of that 
worship for which Daniel had contended even to death. We 
see, then, how Daniel refers all things to the approval of the 
worship of God. The conclusion is, he was the advocate of 
a pious and holy cause, and prepared to undergo death, not 
for any foolish imagination, nor by any rash impulse, nor 
any blind zeal, but because he was assured of his being a 
worshipper of the one God. His being the defender of the 
cause of piety and holiness was, as he asserts, the reason of 
his preservation. This is the correct conclusion. 

Hence we readily gather the folly of the Papists who, from 


CHAP. VI. 21,22. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 381 


this and similar passages, endeavour to establish the merit 
and righteousness of good works. Oh! Daniel was preserved 
because righteousness was found in him before God; hence 
God repays every man according to the merits of his works! 
But we must first consider Daniel’s intention in the narra- 
tive before us; for, as I have said, he does not boast in his 
own merits, but wishes his preservation to be ascribed to the 
Deity as a testimony to his true and pure worship, so as to 
shame King Darius, and to shew all his superstitions to be 
impious, and especially to admonish him concerning that 
sacrilegious edict by which he arrogated to himself the 
supreme command, and, as far as he could, abolished the 
very existence of God. With the view, then, of admonishing 
Darius, the Prophet says his cause was just. And to render 
the solution of the difficulty more easy, we must remark the 
difference between eternal salvation and special deliverances. 
God frees us from eternal death, and adopts us into the hope 
of eternal life, not because he finds any righteousness in us 
but through his own gratuitous choice, and he perfects in us 
his own work without any respect to our works. With re- 
ference to our eternal salvation, our righteousness is by no 
means regarded, because whenever God examines us, he only 
finds materials for condemnation. But when we consider 
particular deliverances, he may then notice our righteous- 
ness, not as if it were naturally ours, but he stretches forth 
his hand to those whom he governs by his Spirit and urges 
to obey his call; and if they incur any danger in their efforts 
to obey his will, he delivers them. The meaning then is 
exactly the same as if any one should assert that God favours 
righteous causes, but it has nothing to do with merits. Hence 
the Papists trifle, like children, when they use this passage 
to elicit from it human merits; for Daniel wished to assert 
nothing but the pure worship of God, as if he had said, not 
only his reason proceeded from God, but there was another 
cause for his deliverance, namely, the wish of the Almighty 
to shew the world experimentally the justice of his cause. 
He adds, And even before thee, O king, I have commutted 
nothing wrong. It is clear that the Prophet had violated 
the king’s edict. Why, then, does he not ingenuously con- 


382 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXX. 


fess this? Nay, why does he contend that he has not trans- 
gressed against the king? Because he conducted himself 
with fidelity in all his duties, he could free himself from 
every calumny by which he knew himself oppressed, as if he 
had despised the king’s sovereignty. But Daniel was not 
so bound to the king of the Persians when he claimed for 
himself as a god what ought not to be offered to him. We 
know how earthly empires are constituted by God, only on 
the condition that he deprives himself of nothing, but shines 
forth alone, and all magistrates must be set in regular order, 
and every authority in existence must be subject to his 
glory. Since, therefore, Daniel could not obey the king’s 
edict without denying God, as we have previously seen, he 
did not transgress against the king by constantly persever- 
ing in that exercise of piety to which he had_ been aceus- 
tomed, and by calling on his God three times a-day. To 
make this the more evident, we must remember that pas- 
sage of Peter, “ Fear God, honour the king.” (1 Pet. ii. 17.) 
The two commands are connected together, and cannot be 
separated from one another. The fear of God ought to pre- 
cede, that kings may obtain their authority. For if any 
one begins his reverence of an earthly prince by rejecting that 
of God, he will act preposterously, since this is a complete 
perversion of the order of nature. Then let God be feared 
in the first place, and earthly princes will obtain their autho- 
rity, if only God shines forth, as I have already said. Daniel, 
therefore, here defends himself with justice, since he had not 
committed any crime against the king ; for he was compelled 
to obey the command of God, and he neglected what the 
king had ordered in opposition to it. For earthly princes’ 
lay aside all their power when they rise up against God, and 
are unworthy of being reckoned in the number of mankind. 
We ought rather utterly to defy than to obey them whenever 
they are so restive and wish to spoil God of his rights, and, 
as it were, to seize upon his throne and draw him down from 
heaven. Now, therefore, we understand the sense of this 
passage. It follows,— 


23. Then was the king exceeding 23. Tunc rex valde exhilaratus in 
glad for him, and commanded that se, vel,swper eo, Danielem jussit educi 


2 al 


CHAP. VI. 23. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 383 


they should take Daniel up out of ex spelunca: et eductus fuit Daniel 
the den. So Daniel was taken up ex spelunca: et nulla corruptio, vel, 
out of the den, and no manner of Jcsio, inventa fuit in eo: quia cre- 
hurt was found upon him, because didit, vel, confisus est, Deo suo. 

he believed in his God. 


Daniel confirms what he had formerly narrated concerning 
the feelings of King Darius. As he had departed in anxiety 
to his palace, had abstained from food and drink, and had 
laid aside all pleasures and delights, so also he rejoiced in 
hearing of the wonderful deliverance from death of God’s 
holy servant. He afterwards adds, And by the king’s com- 
mand Daniel was drawn out of the cave, and no corruption 
was found in him. This cannot be ascribed to good fortune. 
Hence God made his power conspicuous in providing for 
Daniel’s safety from the grasp of the lions. He would have 
been torn to pieces had not God closed their mouths; and 
this contributes in no slight degree to magnify the miracle, 
since no scratch or touch was found upon his body. As the 
lions then spared him, it arose from God’s secret counsel ; 
and he marked this more clearly, when his calumniators were 
thrown into the cave, and were immediately torn by the 
lions, as he will soon add. But we must notice the reason 
which is given: He was preserved, since he trusted in his 
God! It will often happen, that a person may have a good 
cause, and yet succeed badly and unhappily ; because he 
adds to what is otherwise worthy of praise, too great a con- 
fidence in his own counsels, prudence, and industry. Hence 
it is not surprising if those who undertake good causes often 
fail of success, as we often see among the profane. For the 
history of all ages bears witness, to the perishing of those 
who cherish a just cause ; but this arises through their per- 
verse confidence, since they never contemplated the service 
of God, but rather considered their own praise and the 
applause of the world. Hence, as ambition seized them, they 
became pleased with their own plans, Thus arose that 
saying of Brutus, “ Virtue is a frivolous thing!” because he 
thought himself unworthily treated in fighting for the liberty 
of Rome, while the gods were adverse instead of propitious. 
As if God ought to have conferred upon him that aid which 


‘he had never hoped and never sought. For we know the 


384 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXX. 


pride of that hero’s disposition. I bring forward but one 
example; but if we diligently weigh the motives which im- 
pel the profane when they fight strenuously for good objects, 
we shall find ambition to be the prevailing motive. No 
wonder then if God deserted them in this particular, since 
they were unworthy of experiencing his help. For this reason 
Daniel states, that he was safely preserved, because he trusted 
in his God. 

The Apostle refers to this in the eleventh chapter of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, (verse 33,) where he says some were 
snatched away or preserved from the mouths of lions through 
faith. Hence he assigns the cause of Daniel’s escaping in 
safety, and recalls us to faith. But we must here consider 
the meaning and force of the word “ believing.” For the 
Prophet does not simply speak of his deliverance as spring- 
ing from believing Israel’s God to be the true and only God, 
the Maker of heaven and earth, but from his committing his 
life to him, from his reposing on his grace, from his fixed 
determination that his end must be happy, if he worshipped 
him. Since, therefore, Daniel was certainly persuaded that 
his life was in God’s hand, and that his hope in him was not 
in vain, he boldly incurred danger, and intrepidly suffered 
for the sincere worship of God ; hence he says, he believed in 
God. We see then that the word “belief” is not taken 
coldly, as the Papists dream, since their notion implies 
an unfolded or dead and shapeless faith, for they think faith 
nothing else but a confused apprehension of the Deity. 
Whenever men have any conception of God at all, the 
Papists think this to be faith ; but the Holy Spirit teaches 
us far otherwise. For we must consider the language of the 
Apostle,—We do not properly believe in God, unless we de- 
termine him to be a rewarder of all who diligently seek him. 
(Heb. xi. 6.) God is not sought by foolish arrogance, as if 
by our merits we could confer an obligation upon him ; but 
he is sought by faith, by humility, and by invocation. But 
when we are persuaded that God is the rewarder of all who 
seek him, and we know how he ought to be sought, this is 
true faith. So Daniel did not doubt that God would deliver 
him, because he did not distrust that teaching of piety which 





CHAP. VI. 24. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 385 
he had learnt from a boy, and through reliance on which he 
had always called upon God. This, therefore, was the cause 
of his deliverance. Meanwhile, it is clear that Daniel’s trust 
in God did not spring from any previous instruction concern- 
ing the result; for he rather committed his life to God, 
since he was prepared for death. Therefore Daniel could 
not acknowledge this before he was cast into the cave, and 
exposed to the lions, being ignorant whether God would de- 
liver him, as we previously saw in the case of his companions, 
“God, if he pleases, will deliver us; but if not, we are pre- 
pared to worship Him, and to disobey thy edict.” If Daniel 
had been taught the issue beforehand, his constancy would 
not have deserved much praise ; but since he was willing to 
meet death fearlessly for the worship of God, and could deny 
himself and renounce the world, this is a true and serious 
proof of his faith and constancy. He believed therefore in 
God, not because he hoped for such a miracle, but because 
he knew his own happiness to consist in persisting in the 
true worship of God. So Paul says, Christ is gain to me, 
both in life and in death. (Phil. i. 21.) Daniel therefore 
rested in the help of God, but he closed his eyes to the event, 
and was not remarkably anxious concerning his life, but 
since his mind was erected towards the hope of a better life, 
even if he had to die a hundred times, yet he never would 
have failed in his confidence, because our faith is extended 
beyond the boundaries of this frail and corruptible life, as 
all the pious know well enough. What I have already 
touched upon afterwards follows,— 


24. And the king commanded, 
and they brought those men which 
had accused Daniel, and they cast 
them into the den of lions, them, their 
children, and their wives: and the 
lions had the mastery of them, and 
brake all their bones in pieces or 
ever they came at the bottom of the 
den. 


24, Et jussit rex, et adduxerunt 
viros illos qui instruxerant’ accusa- 
tionem adversus eum, nempe Dani- 
elem; et in foveam, spelwncam, 
leonum projecti sunt ipsi, liberi ip- 
sorum, et uxores eorum, et nondum 
pervenerant ad fundum,? spelunce, 
quando dominati sunt,? in eos leones, 
et omnia ossa eorum fregerunt. 


By this circumstance God’s virtue shone forth more clearly 


1 « Had enacted,” “had cried out ;” gui avoyent dressé ceste calomnie. 
—Calvin’s own translation into French. 


2 Or, pavement.—Calvin. 
VOL, I. 


® Or, prevailed.— Calvin. 


2B 


386 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT, XXX. 


in preserving Daniel, because those who had accused him 
were immediately destroyed by the lions. For if any one 
should say that the lions were satisfied, or there was any 
other reason why Daniel was not destroyed, why, when he 
was withdrawn, did such great madness immediately impel 
those beasts to tear and devour, not one man only, but a 
great multitude? Not one of the nobles was preserved ; 
next their wives and children were added. Lions scarcely 
ever proceed to such a pitch of savageness, and yet they all 
perished toa man; then how did Daniel escape? We surely 
see how God by this comparison wished to bear witness to 
his own virtue, lest any one should object that Daniel was 
left by the lions because they were already gorged, and de- 
sired no other prey, for they would have been content with 
either three or four men; but they devoured men, women, 
and children. Hence the mouths of the lions were clearly 
restrained by the divine power, since Daniel was safe during 
a whole night, but they perished immediately, as soon as 
they were cast into the cave; because we again see how 
these beasts were impelled by sudden madness, so that they 
did not wait till their prey arrived at the bottom, but devoured 
them as they fell. We shall leave the rest till to-morrow. 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since we were created and placed in this 
world by thee, and are also nourished by thy bounty, for the very 
purpose of consecrating our life to thee,—Grant, I pray, that 
we may be prepared to live and die to thee. May we seek only 
to maintain the pure and sincere worship of thyself. May we so 
acquiesce in thy help as not to hesitate about breaking through 
all difficulties, and to offer ourselves to instant death, whenever 
thou requirest it. May we rely not only on thy promise, which 
remains for ever, but upon the many proofs which thou hast 
granted us of the present vitality of thy mighty power. Mayest 
thou be our deliverer in every sense, whether we live or die; and 
may we be blessed in persevering in our confidence in thy name, 
and thy true confession, until at length we are gathered into thy 
heavenly kingdom, which thou hast prepared for us by the blood 
of thine only-begotten Son.—Amen. 


eg anni 
e. 7.4 ¢ ’ 


CHAP. VI. 24. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 387 


Lecture Thirty-first. 


Art the end of yesterday’s Lecture, the enemies of Daniel 
who had malignantly, enviously, and cruelly slandered 
him, were cast into the lions’ den, and were torn to pieces 
with their wives and children; and thus the miracle was 
more clearly conspicuous, as we have previously said. Here, 
again, we may learn how lions are governed by God’s hand, 
and are restrained from shewing their ferocity everywhere 
and against every one, except when God permitsthem. As 
it is said in the ninety-first Psalm, Thou shalt walk upon the 
lion and the basilisk, and tread upon the lion and the dragon ; 
(verse 13.) So also, on the other hand, God denounces 
against .the unbelievers by the Prophet. Amos, (chap. v. 
19,) The lions shall come to meet them, if they go forth 
from their houses. We see, then, how God restrains the 
cruelty of lions as often as he pleases, and how he excites 
them to madness when he wishes to punish mankind. With 
regard to their wives and children being also cast into the 
den, we need not dispute with any anxiety, whether or not 
this punishment was just. For it seems to be a sure rule of 
equity, that punishment should not pass on to the innocent, 
especially when it involves their life. In all ages, it has been 
the custom of well-ordered States, for many punishments to 
be inflicted on children as well as their parents, as in a 
public sale of goods, or any charge of violence or treason ; 
in criminal cases also, the infamy of parents extends to the 
children, (but this is far more severe, to slay children with 
their parents,) though they cannot possibly be guilty of the 
same crime. Yet, although this is not one of the customary 
cases, we must not hastily condemn it as unjust. We sce 
how God orders whole families to be exterminated from the 
world as a mark of his hatred; but, as a just Judge, he 
always is moderate in his severity. This example, then, 
cannot be precisely condemned, but we had better leave it in 
doubt. We are aware of the cruel and barbarous manner in 
which the kings of the East exercise their sway, or rather 
their tyranny, on their subjects. Hence there is no reason 


‘ i 
Pm vii 


1 


388 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXXL. 
why any one should fatigue himself with the question, since 
King Darius was so much grieved at his being deceived. 
Hence he not only exacted punishment from these wicked 
slanderers for oppressing Daniel, but because he was himself 
affected by their injustice. He wished rather to avenge him- 
self than Daniel ; he was not content with retaliation, but 
condemned their children also to destruction. It follows,— 


25. Then king Darius wrote unto 
all people, nations, and languages, 
that dwell in all the earth; Peace 
be multiplied unto you. 

26. Imake a decree, that in every 
dominion of my kingdom men trem- 
ble and fear before the God of Da- 
niel; for he is the living God, and 
stedfast for ever, and his kingdom 
that which shall not be destroyed, 
and his dominion shall be even unto 
the end. 

27. He delivereth and rescueth, 
and he worketh signs and wonders 
in heaven and in earth, who hath 
delivered Daniel from the power of 
the lions. 


25. Tune Darius rex, seripsit 
omnibus populis, et gentibus, et lin- 
guis qui habitabant in tota terra, 
Pax vestra multiplicetur. 

26. A me positum est decretum 
in omni dominatione,' regni mei, ut 
sint metuentes et paventes,* a con- 
spectu Dei Danielis ;? quia ipse est 
Deus vivus, et permanens in secu- 
lum: et regnum ejus non corrum- 
petur, et dominatio ejus* usque in 
finem. 

27. Eripiens et liberans, et edens 
signa et miracula’ in ccelo et in 
terra: qui eripuit Danielem e manu 
leonum. 


Here Daniel adds the king’s edict, which he wished to be 


promulgated. And by this edict he bore witness that he 
was so moved by the deliverance of Daniel, as to attribute 
the supreme glory to the God of Israel. Meanwhile, I do 
not think this a proof of the king’s real piety, as some inter- 
preters here extol King Darius without moderation, as if he 
had really repented and embraced the pure worship pre- 
scribed by the law of Moses. Nothing of this kind can be 
collected from the words of the edict—and this cireumstance 
shews it—for his empire was never purged from its super- 
stitions. King Darius still allowed his subjects to worship 
idols ; and he did not refrain from polluting himself with 
such defilements ; but he wished to place the God of Israel 
on the highest elevation, thus attempting to mingle fire and 
water! We have previously discussed this point. For the 

1 Or, throughout the whole of the dominions.—Calvin. 

* That is, that they should fear and be afraid. —Calvin. 

3 That is, before the God of Daniel—Calvin. 


Or, power.—Calvin. 
5 « Wonders,” as some translate it.—Calvin. 





CHAP. VI. 25-27. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 389 


profane think they discharge their duty to the true God, if 
they do not openly despise him, but assign him some place 
or other ; and, especially, if they prefer him to all idols, 
they think they have satisfied God. But this is all futile ; 
for unless they abolish all superstitions, God by no means 
obtains his right, since he allows of no equals. Hence this 
passage by no means proves any true and serious piety in 
King Darius ; but it implies simply his being deeply moved 
by the miracle, and his celebrating through all the regions 
subject to him the name and glory of the God of Israel. 
Finally, as this was a special impulse on King Darius, so it 
did not proceed beyond a particular effect ; he acknowledged 
God’s power and goodness on all sides; but he seized upon 
that specimen which was placed directly before his eyes. 
Hence he did not continue to acknowledge the God of Israel 
by devoting himself to true and sincere piety ; but, as I have 


said, he wished him to be conspicuously superior to other 


> 


gods, but not to be the only God. But God rejects this 
modified worship ; and thus there is no reason for praising 
King Darius. Meanwhile his example will condemn all those 
who profess themselves to be catholic or Christian kings, or 
defenders of the faith, since they not only bury true piety, 
but, as far as they possibly can, weaken the whole worship 
of God, and would willingly extinguish his name from the 
world, and thus tyrannize over the pious, and establish im- 
pious superstitions by their own cruelty. Darius will be a 
fit judge for them, and the edict here recited by Daniel will 
be sufficient for the condemnation of them all. : 

He now says, The edict was written for all people, nations, 
and tongues, who dwell in the whole earth. Wesee how Darius 
wished to make known God’s power not only to the neigh- 
bouring people, but studied to promulgate it far and wide. 
He wrote not only for Asia and Chaldea, but also for the 
Medes and Persians. He had never been the ruler of Persia, 
yet since his father-in-law had received him into alliance in 
the empire, his authority extended thither. This is the 
sense of the phrase, the whole earth. This does not refer to 
the whole habitable world, but to that monarchy which 
extended through almost the entire East, since the Medes 


ee 





590 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXXL 


and Persians then held the sway from the sea as far as 

Egypt. When we consider the magnitude of this empire, 

Daniel may well say, the edict was promulgated through the 
whole earth. Peace be multiplied unto you! We know how 
kings in this way soothe their subjects, and use soft persua- 
sions for more easily accomplishing their wishes, and thus 
obtain the implicit obedience of their subjects. And it is 

gratuitous on their part to implore peace on their subjects. 

Meanwhile, as I have already said, they court their favour 
by these enticements, and thus prepare their subjects to 
submit to the yoke. By the term “ peace,” a state of 
prosperity is implied ; meaning, may you be prosperous and 
happy. He afterwards adds, the decree 1s placed wm thew 
sight, that is, they display their command before all their 
subjects. This, then, is the force of the phrase, my edict 
has been placed ; that is, if my authority and power prevail 
with you, you must thus far obey me; that all may fear, 

or, that all may be afraid and tremble before the God of 
Daniel! By fear and terror he means simply reverence, 
but he speaks as the profane are accustomed to do, who ab- 
hor God’sname. He seems desirous of expressing how con- 
spicuous was the power of the God of Israel, which ought 
properly to impress every one, and induce all to worship 
with reverence, and fear, and trembling. And this method 
of speaking is derived from a correct principle ; since lawful 
worship is never offered to God but when we are humbled 
before him. Hence God often calls himself terrible, not 
because he wishes his worshippers to approach him with 
fear, but, as we have said, because the souls of men will 
never be drawn forth to reverence unless they seriously com- 
prehend his power, and thus become afraid of his judgment. 

But if fear alone flourishes in men’s minds, they cannot form 
themselves to piety, since we must consider that passage of 
the Psalm, “ With thee is propitiation that thou mayest be 
feared.” (Psalm cxxx. 4.) God, therefore, cannot be properly . 
worshipped and feared, unless we are persuaded that he may 
be entreated ; nay, are quite sure that he is propitious to 

us. Yet it is necessary for fear and dread to precede the 

_ humiliation of the pride of the flesh. 


OHAP. VI. 25-27. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 391 


This, then, is the meaning of the phrase, that all should 
Jear or be afraid of the God of Daniel. The king calls him 
so, not because Daniel had fabricated a God for himself, but 
because he was his only worshipper. We very properly 
speak of Jupiter as the god of the Greeks, since he was 
deified by their folly, and hence obtained a name and a 
celebrity throughout the rest of the world. Meanwhile, 
Jupiter, and Minerva, and the crowd of false deities received 
their names from the same origin. There is another reason 
why King Darius calls the God whom Daniel worshipped 
Daniel’s God, as he is called the God of Abraham, not 
through deriving any precarious authority from Abraham, but 
through his manifesting himselfto Abraham. To explain this 
more clearly—Why is he called the God of Daniel rather than 
of the Babylonians? because Daniel had learnt from the law 
of Moses the pure worship of God, and the covenant which 
he had made with Abraham and the holy fathers, and the 
adoption of Israel as his peculiar people. He complied with 
the worship prescribed in the Law, and that worship de- 
pended on the covenant. Hence this name is not given as 
if Daniel had been free to fashion or imagine any god for 
himself; but because he had worshipped that God who had 
revealed himself by his word. Lastly, this phrase ought to 
be so understood as to induce all to fear that God who had 
made a covenant with Abraham and his posterity, and had 
chosen for himself a peculiar people. He taught the method 
of true and lawful worship, and unfolded it in his law, so 
that Daniel worshipped him. We now understand the mean- 
ing of the clause. Thus we may learn to distinguish the 
true God from all the idols and fictions of men, if we desire 
to worship him acceptably. For many think they worship 
God when they wander through whatever errors they please, 
and never remain attached to one true God. But this is 
perverse, nay, it is nothing but a profanation of true piety 
to worship God so confusedly. Hence, we must contemplate 
the distinction which I have pointed out, that our minds 

may be always included within the bounds of the word, and 
not wander from the true God, if indeed we desire to retain 
him and to follow the religion which pleases him. We must 


392 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LEOT. XXXI. 


continue, I say, within the limits of the word, and not turn 
away on either one side or the other ; since numberless fal- 
lacies of the devil will meet us immediately, unless the word 
holds us in strict obedience. As far as concerns Darius, he 
acknowledged the one true God, but as we have already said, 
he did not reject that fictitious and perverse worship in 
which he was brought up;—such a mixture is intolerable 
before God ! 

He adds, Because he 1s alive, and remains for ever! This 
seems to reduce all false gods to nothing; but it has been 
previously said, and the circumstances prove it true, that 
when the profane turn their attention to the supreme God, 
they begin to wander directly. If they constantly acknow- 
ledged the true God, they would instantly exclude all ficti- 
tious ones ; but they think it sufficient if God obtains the 
first rank ; meanwhile they add minor deities, so that he 
lies hid in a crowd, although he enjoys a slight pre-eminence. 
Such, then, was the reasoning and the plan of Darius, 
because he held nothing clearly or sincerely concerning the 
essence of the one true God; but he thought the supreme 
power resident in the God of Israel, just as other nations 
worship their own deities! We see, then, that he did not 
depart from the superstitions which he had imbibed in his 
boyhood; and hence, we have no reason for praising his piety, 
unless in this particular case. But, meanwhile, God extorted 
a confession from him, in which he describes his nature to 
us. He calls him “ the living God,’ not only because he 
has life in himself, but out of himself, and is also the origin 
and fountain of life. This epithet ought to be taken actively, 
for God not only lives but has life in himself; and he is 
also the source of life, since there is no life independent of 
him. He afterwards adds, He remains for ever, and thus 
distinguishes him from all creatures, in which there is no 
firmness nor stability. We know also how everything in - 
heaven, as well as heaven itself, is subject to various changes. 
In this, therefore, God differs from everything created, since 
he is unchangeable and invariable. He adds, His kingdom 
ws not corrupted, and his dominion remains for ever. Here 
he clearly expresses what he had formerly stated respecting 








CHAP. VI. 25-27. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 393 


the firmness of God’s estate, since he not only remains 
essentially the same, but exercises his power throughout the 
whole world, and governs the world by his own virtue, and 
sustains all things. For if he had only said, “ God remains 
for ever,” we are so perverse and narrow-minded as to inter- 
pret it merely as follows :—God, indeed, is not changeable 
in his own essence, but our minds could not comprehend his 
power as universally diffused. This explanation, then, is 
worthy of notice, since Darius clearly expresses that God’s 
kingdom is incorruptible and his dominion everlasting. 
Secondly, he calls God his deliverer. Those who consider 
this edict as an illustrious example of piety, will say Darius 
spoke evangelically as a herald of the mercy of God. But, 
as we have previously said, Darius never generally embraced 
what Scripture teaches concerning God’s cherishing his people 
with clemency, his helping them through his being merciful 
to them, and nourishing them with a father’s kindness. 
King Darius knew nothing of this reason. Daniel’s deliver- 
ance was well known; this was a particular proof of God’s 
favour. If Darius had only partially perceived God’s loving- 
kindness towards his servants, then he would have acknow- 
ledged his readiness to preserve and deliver them. ‘This 
would be too frigid unless the cause was added,—God 1s 
a deliverer! since he has deigned to choose his servants, and 
bears witness to his being their Father, and listens to their 
prayers, and pardons their transgressions. Unless, there- 
fore, the hope of deliverance is founded on God’s gratuitous 
adoption and pity, any acknowledgment of him will be but 
partial and inefficient. Darius, then, does not speak here as 
if truly and purely instructed in the mercy of God ; but he 
speaks of him only as the deliverer of his own people. He 
correctly asserts in general, “God is a deliverer,” since he 
snatched Daniel from the mouth of lions, that is, from their 
power and fierceness. Darius, I say, reasons correctly, when 
he derives from one example the more extensive doctrine 
concerning the power of God to preserve and snatch away 
his people whenever he pleases; meanwhile, he acknow- 
ledges God’s visible power in a single act, but he does not 
understand the principal cause and fountain of God’s affection 





394 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXXI. 


to Daniel to be, his belonging to the sons of Abraham, and 
his paternal favour in preserving him. Hence this instrue- 
tion should profit us and touch our minds effectually, since 
God is our deliverer; and, in the first place, we must confess 
ourselves to be admitted to favour on the condition of his 
pardoning us, and not treating us according to our deserts, 
but indulging us as sons through his amazing liberality. 
This then is the true sense. 

He afterwards says, he performs signs and wonders in 
heaven and earth! This ought to be referred to power and 
dominion, as previously mentioned ; but Darius always con- 
siders the events before his eyes. He had seen Daniel 
dwelling safely with lions, and all the rest destroyed by 
them ; these were manifest proofs of God’s power ; hence 
he properly asserts, he performs signs and wonders. But 
there is no doubt, that Darius was admonished by the other 
signs which had taken place before he possessed the mo- 
narchy ; he had doubtless heard what had happened to 
King Nebuchadnezzar, and then to King Belshazzar, whom 
Darius had slain when he seized his kingdom. He collects, 
therefore, more testimonies to God’s power, for the purpose 
of illustrating his glory in the preservation of Daniel. In 
short, if Darius had renounced his superstitions, the confes- 
sion of his piety would have been pure, and full, and ingenu- 
ous ; but because he did not forsake the worship of his false 
gods, and continued his attachment to their pollution, his 
piety cannot deserve our praise, and his true and serious 
conversion cannot be collected from his edict. This is the 
complete sense. It now follows: | 


28. So this Daniel prospered in 28. Daniel autem ipse prospere 
the reign of Darius, andin thereign egit' in regno Darii et in regno 
of Cyrus the Persian. Cyri Persze. 


The word ny, tzelech, properly signifies to “ pass over,” 
and the signification is here metaphorical, in the sense of 
being prosperous. There is no doubt, however, of there 
being a silent contrast between the kingdom of the Persians 
and the Chaldean monarchy, that is, to speak more concisely 


! Or, passed.—Calvin. 


CHAP. vi. 28. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 395 


and clearly, between the twofold condition of Daniel. For, 
as we have said, he was for some time in obscurity under 
Nebuchadnezzar; when this monarchy was about to perish 
he became conspicuous ; and throughout the whole period of 
the reign of the Chaldeans he was obscure and contemptible. 
All indeed had heard of him as a remarkable and illustrious 
Prophet, but he was rejected from the palace. At one time 
he was seated at the king’s gate, in great honour and respect, 
and then again he was cast out. During the continuance of 
the Chaldee monarchy, Daniel was not held in any esteem ; 
but under that of the Medes and Persians he prospered, and 
was uniformly treated with marked respect, for Cyrus and 
Darius were not so negligent as instantly to forget the won- 
derful works of God performed by his hand. Hence the 
word “ passing through,” pleases me, since, as I have said, 
it is a mark of the continual possession of honour ; for not. 
only King Darius, but also Cyrus exalted him and raised 
him into the number of his nobles, when he heard of his 
favour. It is clear that he left Babylon and went else- 
where. Very probably he was not long among the Medes, 
for Darius or Cyaxares died without any heirs, and then his 
whole power passed to Cyrus alone, who was his nephew, 
through his sister, and his son-in-law being his daughter's 
husband. No doubt Daniel here commends God’s favour 
and kindness towards himself, because this was not the usual 
solace of exile, to obtain the highest favour among foreign 
and barbarous nations, or attain the largest share of their 
honour and reverence. God, therefore, alleviated his sorrow 
by this consolation in his exile. Hence Daniel here not only 
regards himself in his private capacity, but also the object of 
his dignity. For God wished his name to be spread abroad 
and celebrated over all those regions through which Daniel 
was known, since no one could behold without remembering 
the power and glory of Israel’s God. Daniel, therefore, 
wished to mark this. On the other hand also, no doubt, it 
_ was a matter of grief to him to be deprived of his country, 
not like the rest of mankind, but because the land of Canaan 
was the peculiar inheritance of God’s people. When Daniel 
was snatched away and led off to a distance, as far as Media 


396 COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. LECT. XXXI. 


and Persia, without the slightest hope of return, there is no 
doubt that he suffered continual distress. Nor was the 
splendour of his station among the profane of such import- 
ance as to induce him to prefer it to that pledge of God’s 
favour and paternal adoption in the land of Canaan. He 
had doubtless inscribed on his heart that passage of David’s, 
I had rather be in the court of the Lord, than in the midst 
of the greatest riches of the ungodly: then, I had rather be 
a despised one in the house of God, than to dwell in the 
tents of the unrighteous.” (Ps. Ixxxiv. 10.) Thus Daniel 
had been taught. Ezekiel, too, properly includes him among 
the three most holy men who have lived since the beginning 
of the world. (xiv. 14.)' This was of the greatest moment ; 
for when he was a youth, or at least but middle aged, he was 
joined with Job and Noah, and was the third in rare and 
- almost incredible sanctity! Since this was his character, he 
was no doubt affected with the greatest sorrow when he per- 
ceived himself subject to perpetual exile, without the slight- 
est hope of return, and of being able to worship God in his 
temple and to offer sacrifice with the rest. But lest he 
should be ungrateful to God, he desires to express his sense 
of the uncommon benevolence with which, though an exile 
and a stranger, and subject to reproach among other captives, 
he was treated and even honoured among the Medes and 
Persians. This, therefore, is the simple meaning of the 
passage. It is quite clear, as I have lately said, that Cyrus, 
after the death of Darius, succeeded to the whole monarchy ; 
and we shall afterwards see in its proper place how Daniel 
dwelt with Cyrus, who reigned almost thirty years longer. 
Thus, a long time intervened between his death and that of 
Darius. This, therefore, did not occur without the remark- 
able counsel of God, since the change in the kingdom did 
not influence the position of Daniel, as it usually does. For 
new empires we know to be like turning the world upside 
down. But Daniel always retained his rank, and thus God’s 
goodness was displayed in him, and wherever he went he car- 
ried with him this testimony of God’s favour. I shall not pro- 
ceed further, as we shall discuss a new prophecy to-morrow. 


’ See Dissertation, No. xxv., at the close of this Volume. 


CHAP. vi. 28. COMMENTARIES ON DANIEL. 397 


PRAYER. 


Grant, Almighty God, since by means of a man entangled in many 


errors, thou wishest to testify to us the extent of thy power, that 
we may not at this day grope about in darkness, while thou 
offerest us light, through the Sun of righteousness, Jesus Christ, 
thy Son. Meanwhile, may we not be ashamed to profit by the 
words of a heathen, who was not instructed in thy law, but who 
celebrated thy name so magnificently when admonished by a 
single miracle: hence may we learn by his example to acknow- 
ledge thee, not only the Supreme but the Only God. As thou 
hast bound us to thyself by entering into a covenant with us in 
the blood of thine only-begotten Son, may we ever cleave to thee 
with true faith; may we renounce all the clouds of error, and be 
always intent upon that light to which thou invitest us, and to- 
wards which thou drawest us ; until we arrive at the sight of thy 
glory and majesty, and being conformed to thee, may we at length 
enjoy in reality that glory which we now but partially behold.— 
Amen. 











RAMS WP sertycy ates a 









. < mr -1Tt oy 250 Aieiees » vigt 
iy a? ' 
Pal a aah 
r es p- r a fi - : ‘ ' 
: t : 7 = 
cay ; fetge are eae te 






ee My Rae of a Wee i ; ; My jeden 

: Pad ot ALS. i Bie a jh AAPG By 4 ayer a ¢ _ 
De . oy et, a ‘ ts 3 ft bf aay Gee 
RRR aL Nickie ete me Lian oe ke Cee ahr 

wy 3 CER fa S0eah SEPP ial 







f ' x , 
ae SO NSE TI Res IP att al ua 7) ree, F ‘ ‘ Oe. 
‘ | . a i a CAL SO) ais 2) eee ae 

‘ , 2 ! ys 

it? wats indy * , bis. S ‘ 

ri ‘ ‘- din. wes ‘ od 4 i 

; > M nn BSS ® THML? 75 a) : + =z 7 et? ub 5 t mm 
a : 4 . NT € ar : t 
- . Pd be ey LD Dee Ker oe 

- e peta vs s t 





sails: n 
ele PSA vie) 











ow en? 
heh LT) glee 5 oe sf obhe xine 













. : M , P : 
i a ¥ hei) See Bae eras ee an, oe 


an she rt 


> 








i] 
fr * 
Pioay = 
: Ms, > 
i 
- 
a ; ; _ 
. 
) 
id ) ae 





De ie hall 
‘ 


DISSERTATIONS, 





sissertation first. 


THE THIRD YEAR OF KING JEHOTAKIM. 


Crap, i, 1. 


A correct idea of the scope and interpretation of these 
prophecies ‘cannot be obtained without a due attention to the 
chronology of the events recorded. Hence, throughout these 
Dissertations it will be necessary to discuss some apparently 
unimportant points, and to combat some seemingly harmless 
opinions. We are thus compelled to enter into details 
which some may pronounce devoid of interest, but which 
will prove worth the labour bestowed upon them. 

The necessity for comment on this first verse arises from 
the difficulty of reconciling its statement with the twenty- 
fifth chapter of Jeremiah. The relation of the reign of 
Nebuchadnezzar must be harmonized with those of the three 
last kings of Judah, to enable us to reconcile Daniel and 
Jeremiah. We must first ascertain the historical events 
which concern Jehoiakim, and fix their dates by comparing 
the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and the various allusions 
to him in Ezekiel and other prophets. Next, we must accu- 
rately define the events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; and 
afterwards so compare them as to draw a correct inference 
from the whole, notwithstanding much apparent discrepancy. 
This has been done by some commentators, the results of 
whose labours will here be placed before the reader. Wit- 
LET’s remark on Calvin is worthy of notice: “Calvin thinketh 


400 DISSERTATIONS. 


to dissolve this knot by the distinction of Nebuchadnezzar 
the father, and Nebuchadnezzar the son; that in one place 
the one is spoken of, and the other in the other, but the 
question is not concerning the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s 
reign, but the year of Jehoiakim’s reign wherein Jerusalem 
should be besieged ; so that the doubt remaineth still.’ He 
also answers Calvin’s solution, by referring Nebuchadnezzar’s 
second year not to the period of his reign, but “ rather to the 
time of Daniel’s ministry and employment with the king, 
that in the second year of his service he expounded the king’s 
dream.” Many learned Jews are of opinion that the last year 
of Jehoiakim’s reign is intended, meaning the last of his inde- 
pendent sovereignty, since they treat him in former years as 
simply a tributary king to either the Egyptians or Babylo- 
nians. Josephus in his Antzg., (Book x. 6,) is supposed to 
favour this theory ; for he places Nebuchadnezzar’s attack 
in the eighth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, and does not allude 
to any previous one. WunrTLE, however, does not consider 
that the words of Josephus justify this inference,” and sug- 
gests that the difference in the methods used by the Jews 
and Babylonians in computing their years, may tend to 
obviate the inconsistency. WINTLE suggests some reasons for 
dating the commencement of the seventy years’ captivity from 
the completion of the siege in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 
when Daniel and his associates were among the first cap- 
tives. Prideaux supposes this event to have occurred six 
hundred and six years 4.o., or the one hundred and forty- 
second year of Nabonassar’s era; Vignoles and Blair fix the 
year following. Wuntle agrees with the latter date, sup- 
posing the captivity not to continue during seventy solar 
years, and fixing their termination about 536 a. c. 

Another commentator, who has paid great attention to 
chronology, deserves special notice, since he advocates a new 
theory respecting Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, which is wor- 
thy of remark, though it has been severely criticised. THE 
Dvxe or ManoueEster has an elaborate chapter on this date, 
from which we shall extract the conclusions at which he has 


1 Willet’s “ Hexapla in Dan.” Edit. 1610, p. 13. 
* See his “ Daniel.” Edit. Tegg, 1836, p. 2. 


THIRD YEAR OF KING JEHOIAKIM. 401 


arrived. He understands “ Daniel to speak of Jehoiakim’s 
independent reign, reckoning from the time that he rebelled 
against Nebuchadnezzar.” Jehoiakim was taken captive in 
the seventh of Nebuchadnezzar. 

The oldest expositors felt the difficulty of the passage. 
Rabbi Solomon Jarchi asks, “ How can this be said ?” and 
then replies as follows :—This was the eighth year of Nebu- 
chadnezzar and the third of Jehoiakim’s rebellion against 
him. 

HeENGstenBerG has not been forgetful to defend our Pro- 
phet from the charge of historical inaccuracy, to which this 
verse has given rise. He treats the assumption, that Nebu- 
chadnezzar took Jerusalem before his accession to the throne, 
as inadmissible. “The assertion of his being associated by 
his father in the co-regency at that time is not adequately 
sustained.”” Cu. B. Micuarnis and Bertuotpt have made 
various attempts to reconcile the discrepancy. “ The as- 
sumption,” says Hengstenberg, “that Nebuchadnezzar under- 
took his first expedition in the eighth year of Jehoiakim, is 
an hypothesis grounded merely on one passage.” Still, this 
passage, far from containing an error, affords a striking proof 
of the writer’s historical knowledge. Berosus, as quoted by 
Josephus, (Arch. x. 11, 1,) narrates the victory of Nebuchad- 
nezzar at Carchemish, which occurred about the close of 
Jehoiakim’s third year. Carchemish was a city on the 
banks of the Euphrates, taken by Pharaoh-Necho about 
three years previously. Immediately after this victory, the 
conqueror marched against Jerusalem and took it. The 
process by which Hengstenberg arrives at this result, the 
various authors whom he quotes, and the complete refuta- 
tion which he supplies of all the conjectures of his Neologian 
opponents, will be found amply detailed in the valuable work 
already quoted. RosENMULLER also discusses the point, but 
leans too much to those writers whom Hengstenberg refutes. 


1 «The Times of Daniel,” p. 29, chap. iii., where other dates of interest 


are clearly exhibited. 
2 Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel. Edinburgh, 1848, p. 43. 


VOL. I. . 20 





Dissertation Second. 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR—ONE KING OR TWO? 


Cuap. i. 1. 


Tue difficulty of reconciling the various statements of 
Scripture with themselves and with profane history, has 
raised the question whether there were two Nebuchadnezzars 
or only one. The Duke or MANCHESTER is a strenuous adyo- 
cate for the former hypothesis, and his view of the case is 
worthy of perusal. The first king he supposes to have over- 
thrown Necho’s army in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, as we 
have already stated. He came from the north into Judea, 
and took the people captive after the overthrow of Assyria. 
His eleventh year corresponds with the fourth of Zedekiah, 
while he reigned on the whole about twenty-nine years. He 
is to be identified with Cyrus, the father of Cambyses, well 
known in Persian history, so that the second Nebuchad- 
nezzar was Cambyses himself. Although the astronomical 
Canon of Ptolemy is a formidable adversary, this writer 
shews much ingenuity in bending it to his purpose. The first 
king of this name began his reign A. c. 511, while Paulus 
Orosius determines the taking of Babylon “by Cyrus” about 
the time of the expulsion of the kings from Rome (a. ¢. 510.) 
Thus sixty-nine years elapsed between the overthrow of 
Necho and the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar the 
second ; and in the eighteenth year of the reign of this latter 
king the golden image was set up. 

Having identified the second king with Cambyses, this 
writer brings forward many testimonies in favour of his being 
a Persian, and shews that the Chaldeans were not Babylo- 
nians but Persians. He treats him as identical with the 


= a 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR—ONE KING OR TWO ? 403 


Persian Jemsheed, the contemporary of Pythagoras and 
Thales, and the founder of Pasargadz and Persepolis, and 
justifies his positions by the authorities of Diocles, Hecatzeus, 
Cedrenus, the Maccabees, Abydenus, and Alexander Poly- 
histor. ‘The evidence is deduced from direct testimony, 
from geographical position, from similarity in language and 
religion, in manners and customs, in personal character and 
alliances; from Babylonian bricks and cylinders; as also 
from historical synchronisms and identity of actions.”* The 
statements of Herodotus are fully discussed and compared 
with the Egyptian sculptures, with the view of shewing that 
the second Nebuchadnezzar was the Cambyses of Herodotus, 
the son-in-law of Astyages and the conqueror of Egypt. The 
story of his madness, after profaning the temple of Apis, is 
said to apply accurately to this second monarch. 

It could not be expected that a theory of this kind could 
be introduced into the world without severe and searching 
examination, Accordingly, Brrxs, in his preface to “ The 
two later Visions of Daniel,” writes as follows: “I have ex- 
amined closely the two difficulties which alone give a seem- 
ing strength to his Grace’s theory,—the succession of names 
in the Persian history, and the two covenants under Zerub- 
babel and Nehemiah,—and feel confident I can meet them 
both with a full and complete answer. It seems to me sur- 
prising that a paradox of two Scripture Nebuchadnezzars, 
and a Scripture Cyrus, totally unknown to profane history, 
in the reign of Longimanus, contemporary with Cimon and 
Pericles, can ever be received by any mind accustomed to 
pay the least regard to the laws of evidence. Every fresh 
inquiry has only increased my confidence in the usual 
chronology derived from the Canon of Ptolemy, and its 
truth, I believe, may be almost entirely established even by 
Scripture evidence alone.’ Vavx, the learned author of 
“ Nineveh and Persepolis,” furnishes a clear sketch of Nebu- 
chadnezzar’s career, by combining the accounts of Herodotus 
and the Scriptures. In the thirty-first year of Josiah’s reign, 
Necho fought the battle of Megiddo, in which Josiah was 
mortally wounded. He then took Cadytis, “the holy city” 


1 Times of Daniel, p. 141. 





404 DISSERTATIONS. 


of the Jews, and at length returned to Egypt with abun- 
dance of spoil. After a lapse of three years he invaded the 
territory of the king of Babylon. The reigning monarech— 
Nabopolassar—was aged and infirm; he gave the command 
of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the 
Egyptians at Carcesium or Carchemish, and drove them out 
of Asia. He marched to Jerusalem, and reinstated Jehoia- 
kim as its king, in subjection to himself; he spoiled the 
temple of the chief ornaments and vessels of value, and 
among the prisoners transmitted to Babylon were Daniel 
and his three friends. He next carried on war against the 
Egyptians, till the news of his father’s death caused his re- 
turn. The revolt of Jehoiakim caused a second attack upon 
the city, and the carrying off of many prisoners, among whom 
was Ezekiel, to the banks of the distant Chebar. Zedekiah, 
the brother of Jehoiakim, having been placed on the throne, 
and having made an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra, the 
Apries of Herodotus, he is deposed by the King of Babylon, 
and carried captive in blindness and chains. Thus for the 
third and last time this conqueror invaded Judea and pro- 
faned the temple. After a lapse of four years he besieged 
Tyre; for thirteen years it resisted his arms, but was at 
length razed to the ground. He next succeeded in an ex- 
pedition against Egypt, dethroned Apries, and leaving 
Amasis as his viceroy, returned to his imperial city. In the 
language of Jeremiah, “he arrayed himself with the land of 
Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment.” He next 
occupies himself in beautifying the city, and erecting a palace 
of extraordinary magnificence, and in constructing those 
hanging gardens mentioned by Diodoras, Megasthenes, and 
Arrian. The remainder of his history is easily gathered 
from the Prophet’s narrative. “A careful consideration of 
the authorities seems to shew that Cxirnton is right in his 
supposition that the reign of this prince was about forty- 
four years in duration, and that he was succeeded after a 
short interval by Belshazzar.”* Wéallet arrives at the same 
conclusion as to the length of his reign by a different pro- 
cess of reasoning. The following dates are extracted from 


1 Nineveh and Persep., p. 71, second edition. 


a eee re - 


le 


—_— 


NEBUCHADNEZZAR—ONE KING OR TWO? 405 


Prideaux, whose caution and accuracy are most commend- 

able :— 

A.C. 

586. Tyre besieged. 

570. The death of Apries, coincident with the dream of the 
tree, (chap. iv.,) after his last return from Egypt. 

569. Chap. iv. 30. Driven out into the fields. 

563. Restored after seven years. 

562. Death, after about forty-four years’ reign. 


Another series of dates has been displayed by the author 
of “The Times of Daniel,’ founded on a different chronolo- 
gical basis; we can only extract a few of them from pp. 282, 
et seg. :— 


B.C: 


510. Babylon taken by Cyrus, and kings expelled from 
Rome. 

507. Commencement of Jehoiakim’s independent reign. 
Dan.i. 1. 


500. Nebuchadnezzar II. appointed; his dream. Dan. 11. 
494, Golden Image set up. Dan. iii. 

483. Nebuchadnezzar I. died. 

441. Nebuchadnezzar II. died. 


Dr. Wells has the following chronological arrangement of 
the chief events of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign :— 
A.C. 
607. He is this year taken by his father “as partner” in the 
kingdom, falling in with the latter part of the third 
year of Jehoiakim, (Chap. i. 1.) 


' 606. Jehoiakim carried to Babylon with Daniel and others. 


The first of the seventy years’ captivity. 


~ 605. His father died. Nabopolassar in Ptolemy’s Canon, 


the son’s name being Nabocolassor. The Canon 
allows him forty-three years from this period. 
603. Daniel interprets his dream. Chap. 11. 
588. He re-takes Jerusalem and Zedekiah. | 
569. Returned to Babylon, is afflicted with insanity. Ch. iv. 
562. He dies “a few days” after being restored to reason. 





Dissertation Third. 


THE ANCESTORS AND SUCCESSORS OF 
NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


Cuap. i. 1. 


To understand aright the history of these times, we must 
take a cursory glance at the period both preceding and fol- 
lowing that of the great Chaldean chieftain. His ancestors 
were largely concerned in the overthrow of the Assyrian 
empire. The origin of this monarchy is involved in great 
obscurity, and we are at this moment in a transition state 
with respect to our knowledge of its history. The decipher- 
ing of those inscriptions which have lately been brought 
home is rapidly proceeding, and will lead to a more complete 
knowledge of the events of this obscure epoch. Early inthe . 
Book of Genesis we read of Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, 
as the founder of an extensive monarchy in the land of 
Shinar. Out of this land he went forth into Ashur, or per- 
haps it is Ashur who went forth and built Nineveh and 
other cities. The records of succeeding ages are too few to 
enable us to follow the stream of history : we have nothing 
to guide us but myths, and legends, and traditionary sove- 
reigns, whose names are but the fictions of imagination. It 
must never be forgotten that many centuries elapsed between 
Noah and Solomon, and that the most ancient profane his- 
tory is comparatively modern. The late discoveries in 
Egypt, and the high state of civilisation attained by these 
“swarthy barbarians,” have led the learned to the conclusion 
that we have hitherto lost many centuries between the flood 
and Abraham ; and since the long list of Egyptian dynasties, 


ANCESTORS AND SUCCESSORS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 407 


as given by Manetho, has been proved accurate, it may 
fairly be supposed that the Assyrian sculptures will rather 
add to the credit of Ctesias than detract from it. At all 
events, Nineveh was “no mean city” when Athens was a 
marsh, and Sardis a rock. Whether Ninus is a fabulous 
creation or not, monarchs as mighty as the eagle-headed 
worshipper of Nisroch his god, swayed the sceptre for ages 
over a flourishing and highly civilized people. Herodotus 
gives us a hint of the antiquity and pre-eminence of Assyria 
when he says, “The Medes were the first who began to re- 
volt from the Assyrians, who had possessed the supreme com- 
mand over Upper Asia for five hundred and twenty years.” 
Whether we adopt the view of Bishop Lowth or not, that 
Ninus lived in the time of the Judges,’ we may correctly 
assume that some successful conqueror enlarged and beauti- 
fied Babylon, five hundred years before the Chaldean era 
of Nabonassar, 747 a.c. Whatever the source of this wealth, 
whether derived from the spoils of conquered nations, accord- 
ing to Montesquieu, or from intercourse with India through 
Egypt, according to Bruce,” the lately discovered remains 
imply a very high style of art at avery remote period in 
the history of Assyria. The “ Pul” of 2 Kings xv. 19, 
was -by no means the founder of the monarchy, as Sir 
Isaac Newton and others have supposed ; he was but one 
amidst those “ servants of Bar,’ whose names are now legible 
on the Nimroud obelisk in the British Museum. The next 
king mentioned in Scriptures is Tiglath-Pileser, whose name 
we have lately connected with Pul and Ashur; and after 
him follow Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, the 
three kings who are thought to have built the palace at 
Khorsabad, founded Mespila, and constructed the lions in 
the south-west palace of Nimroud. As the Medes revolted 
first, so the Chaldeans rebelled afterwards, according to the 
usual law of separation from the parent stock, when the 
tribe or race grows strong enough to establish its indepen- 

1 See his Notes on Isaiah, chap. xxiii. p. 132; and Herod. Clio. Edit. 
Gronoy., p. 40. 

2 Travels, Book ii. chap. 1. See Prideaua’s authorities, and his ar- 


rangement of the Assyrian kings, which differs slightly from that here 
adopted. 


408 DISSERTATIONS. 


dence. The first prince who is known to have lived after 
this revolt is Nabonassar, the founder of the era called by his 
name. In process of time, other kings arose and passed away, 
till in the thirty-first year of Manasseh, Esarhaddon died, 
after reigning thirteen years over Assyria and Babylon 
united. He was succeeded by his son Laosduchius, the 
Nabuchodonosor of the Book of Judith, whose successor 
commenced his reign in the fifty-first year of Manasseh, 
being the hundred and first of the above mentioned era. 
From this effeminate king his Chaldean general Nabopo- 
lassar wrested Babylon, and reigned over his native country 
twenty-one years. ‘This revolt is said to have taken place 
in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, when the powers of 
Media uniting with the power of Babylonia, took and de- 
stroyed the great city of Nineveh, and reduced the people 
under the sway of the rising monarchy. His son Nebuchad- 
nezzar is said to have married the daughter of Astyages, the 
king of the Medes, and thus brings down the history to the 
times of our Prophet. 

Among the ancient cities of the world, Nineveh is conspi- 
cuous for its grandeur. The phrase of Jonah, “that great 
city,’ is amply confirmed by the historian, Diodorus Siculus, 
(lib. i. sec. 23,) who uses precisely the same expression, 
recording its circumference as four hundred and eighty 
stadia, with high and broad walls. The inference from the 
statement of the Book of Jonah is, that it was populous, 
civilized, and extensive. The language of both Jonah and 
Nahum imply exactly what the buried sculptures have | 
exhibited to us, a state of society highly organized, with 
various ranks, from the sovereign to the soldier and the 
workman, yet effeminated by luxury and self-indulgence. 
‘The expressions of Scripture give us exalted ideas of its 
size and splendour, while they assign its wickedness as a 
reason for the complete destruction by which it was annihi- 
lated. Prophet after prophet recognises its surpassing opu- 
lence, its commercial greatness, and its deep criminality. 
The voice of Zephaniah is soon followed by the sword of 
Arbaces, and Sennacherib and Sardanapalus are eclipsed by 
therising greatness of Nabopolassar and Cyaxares. Its temples 


_ So 


ANCESTORS AND SUCCESSORS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 4.09 


and its palaces had become so encrusted in the soil during 
eight centuries of men, that Strabo knows it only as a waste, 
and Tacitus treats it as a Castellum ; and in the thirteenth 
century of our era, Abulfaragius confirms the prophecy of 
Nahum and the narrative of Tacitus, by recording nothing 
but the existence of a small fortification on the eastern bank 
of the Tigris.’ 

The dates assigned to these events vary considerably ; the 
following may be trusted as the result of careful comparison. 
In the year a. c. 650, Nebuchodonosor is found on the throne 
of Assyria, “a date,” says Vaux, “which is determined by 
the coincidence with the forty-eighth year of Manasseh, and 
by the fact that his seventeenth year was the last of Phra- 
ortes, king of Media, a.c. 634. The Book of Judith informs 
us of an important engagement at Ragau between this 
Assyrian king and Arphaxad the king of the Medes. This 
victory at Ragau, or Rhages, occurred a.c. 634, just “ fifty- 
seven years after the loss of Sennacherib’s army.” After 
returning from Ecbatana, the capital of Media, the conqueror 
celebrated a banquet at Nineveh which lasted one hundred 
and twenty days. Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, at length 
avenged his father’s death at Rhages, and by the aid of 
Nabopolassar, threw off the yoke of Assyria, attacked and 
took Nineveh about 606 a.c, and thus, by fixing the seat of 
empire at Babylon, blotted out the name of Nineveh from 
the page of the world’s history. 

This renowned general is usually held to be the father of 
Nebuchadnezzar, on the authority of Berosus, as quoted by 
Josephus, and of the Astronomical Canon of Ptolemy. But 
the author of “ The Times of Daniel” endeavours to identify 
him with either Sardanapalus or Esarhaddon ; the arguments 
by which this supposition is supported will be found in de- 
tail in the work itself, while the original passages in Josephus 
and Eusebius are found at length in the notes to Grotius on 
“ The truth of the Christian religion.”* We died a.c. 695.’ 

1 Strabo, lib. xvi. p. 737. Tacit. An., lib. xii. sec. 13. Hist. Dyn, 
“s 5 Nineveh and Persepolis, p. 37. 


3 Bk. iii. sec. 16, and Luseb. Prepar., lib. ix. c. 40 ‘and 41, also 
Strabo, lib. xv. p. 687. 


410 DISSERTATIONS. 


His Succressors.—According to the Canon of Ptolemy, 
Evil-Merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, reigned two years, 
and was slain by his brother-in-law Neri-Glissar, who reigned 
four years ; his son, Laboroso-archod, reigned nine months, 
though quite a child, and was slain by Nabonadius, sup- 
posed to be Belshazzar, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, who 
reigned seventeen years. Evil-Merodach is mentioned in 
2 Kings xxv. 27, and Jeremiah lii. 31, but not by Daniel, 
and this gives some countenance to the supposition, that 
Belshazzar was the son and not the grandson of Nebuchad- 
nezzar. It is not easy to assign with certainty the correct 
dates to each of these kings, the reckoning of Josephus is 
here followed, which he derives from Berosus. The testimony 
of profane antiquity to the truth and historical accuracy of 
Daniel may be found in a convenicnt form in Kitto’s Bibli. 
Cyclop., Art. Nebuchadnezzar, p. 406. The authorities are 
quoted at length, and the whole subject is ably elucidated. 
The limited space necessarily allowed for illustrating these 
Lectures, must be our apology for merely indicating where 
valuable information is to be obtained. 

In the New Monthly Magazine for August and September 
1845, there are two articles very full of illustration of our 
subject, by W. F. Ainsworth, entitled, The Rivers and Cities — 
of Babylonia. 





Dissertation Fourth. 


THE CHALDEANS. 


Cuap. i. 5. 


To determine the question which was raised in our last 
DIssERTATION, we must investigate the origin of the Chal- 
deans, as it was the tribe whence Nebuchadnezzar sprung. 
“The question,” says Heeren, “what the Chaldeans really 
were, and whether they ever properly existed as a nation, is 
one of the most difficult which history presents.”’ They are 
first mentioned in Genesis (xi. 28,) as Casdim, (Lec. v. p. 
122 ;) they were situated north of Judea, and are identical 
with the people who should, according to Jeremiah, destroy 
the temple from the north. (Jer. i. 13, 14, &.) They are 
not mentioned by name again in the books of Scripture till 
many centuries afterwards they had become a mighty nation. 
The word Chasdim in the Hebrew and Chasdaim in the 
Chaldee dialects, is clearly the same as the Greek Xanédato ; 
and Gesenius supposing the root to have been originally 
card, refers them to the race inhabiting the mountains called 
by Xenophon Carduchi. Forster, indeed, has argued at 
considerable length in favour of their Arabian origin, and 
supposes them the well known Beni Khaled, a horde of 
Bedouin Arabs.? From this opinion we entirely dissent. 
The view of Gesenius in his Lectures at Halle in 1839, 
quoted in “ The Times of Daniel,” appears preferable,—“ The 
Chaldeans had their original seat on the east of the Tigris, 
south of Armenia, which we now call Koordistan ; and, like 
the Koords in our day, they were warlike mountaineers, 


1 Vol. ii, ch. i., Babylon, p. 147, Eng. Trans. 
2 Geog. of Arabia, vol. i. p. 54, and vol. ii, p. 210, 





412 DISSERTATIONS. 


without agriculture, shepherds and robbers, and also merce- 
naries in the Assyrian army ; so Xenophon found them,”? _ 
Vaux quotes Diceearchus, a Greek historian of the time of 
Alexander the Great, as alluding to a certain Chaldean, a 
king of Assyria, who is supposed to have built Babylon; and 
in later times, Chaldea implied the whole of Mesopotamia 
around Babylon, which had also the name of Shiner.” 

Their religion and their language are also of importance. 
The former consisted in the worship of the heavenly bodies. 
They are supposed to have brought with them to Babylon a 
knowledge of astronomy superior to any then known, since 
they reduced their observations on the sun, moon, five planets, 
signs of the zodiac, and the rising and setting of the sun, to 
a regular system ; and the Greeks are said by Herodotus to 
have derived from them the division of the day into twelve ~ 
equal parts.® The lunar year was in common use, but the 
solar year, with its division of months similar to the Egyp- 
tian, was employed for astronomical purposes. The learned 
class gradually acquired the reputation and position of 
“priests,” and thus became astrologers and soothsayers, and 
“wise men” in their day and generation. Michaelis and 
Schlozer consider their origin to be Sclavonic, and, conse- 
quently, distinct from the Babylonians, who were descendants 
of Shem. | | 


Tuer Lanevace.—tThe original language of this people is 
a point of great interest to the biblical critic. If the people 
were of old northern mountaineers, they spoke a language 
connected with the Indo-Persic and Indo-Germaniec stem 
rather than the Semitic. In treating this question, we 
should always allow for the length of time which elapsed 
between the original outbreak of those hordes from their 
native hills and their conquest of Babylon under Nebuchad- 
nezzar. Gesenius, in his Lectures on Biblical Archeology, 


1 Anab. iv. § 3, v. § 6, vii. § 8. See also Strabo, lib. x., and Freret 
Rech. Hist. sur les anc. Peuple de l Asie, vol. iii., and other authorities 
quoted by the Duke of Manchester, pp. 104, 105. 

_? See Diceearch. ap. Stephan. de Urb. voce X«#adaiez, amd other authori-: 
ties quoted by Vaua, p. 41, &c., also Cicero de Divin. 

3 Herod. ii. § 109. 


fe Sad 
 - 


; 
; 
THE CHALDEANS. 413 


reminds us of their being first tributary to the Assyrians, of 
their subsequent occupation of the plains of Mesopotamia 
for some centuries previously to their becoming the conquer- 
ors of Asia under successful leaders.’ 

From the fourth verse of chap. ii. we learn that they spoke 
the Aramaic dialect, which the Alexandrine Version, as well 
as Theodotion’s, denominates the Syriac. From the Cyro- 
pedia (Book vii. 24) we ascertain that the Syriac was the 
ordinary language of Babylon. Strabo also informs us that 
the same language was used throughout all the regions on 
the banks of the Euphrates.” Diodorus Siculus calls the 

_ Chaldeans the most ancient inhabitants of Babylonia, and 
assigns to their astrologers a similar position to that of the 
Egyptian priests. Their devotion to philosophy and their 
practice of astronomy gained them great credit with the 
powerful, which they turned to account by professing to 
predict the future and to interpret the visions of the imagin- 
ative and the distressed.* The testimony of Cicero is pre- 
cisely similar.* Hengstenberg has tested the historical 
truthfulness of the author of this book, by comparing his 
account of the Chaldean priest-caste with those of profane 
history. According to chap. ii. 48, the president of this 
caste was also a prince of the province of Babylon. Thus, 
according to Diodorus Siculus, Belesys was the chief presi- 
dent of the priests, ‘“‘ whom the Babylonians call Chaldeans,” 
and governor of Babylon. In Jeremiah, (xxxix. 3-13,) the 
president of the priests belonged to the highest class in the 
kingdom, and is called 9235, rab-mag, a word of Persian 
origin, and clearly applicable to the office as described by 
Daniel. The views of Hengstenberg are usually so correct, 
that the student may generally adopt them at once as his 
own. ; 

1See Lichhorn’s Report. vol. viii., and Winer’s Chaldce G'r., Introd., 
also Adelung’s Mithridat, th. i. p. 314. ff. 

2 Lib. ii. t. i. p. 225, ed. Sieb., also lib. xvi. * Lib. ii. ch. 20. 


ee = 3 Fis, Divinas., lib: i. eap;-1,alao Pling’s Ni Hi Nb. viz ch; 26: 
| 6 Lib. fi. § 24, ap Heng, p.275, Edit. Ed., 1848. 





Dissertation Fifth. 


I. ASHPENAZ, A CHIEF OF THE EUNUCHS. 


CuapP. i. 7. 


TuIs proper name is interpreted by Saadias to mean “the 
man of a sorrowful countenance ;’ but Rosenmiiller assigns 
the meaning of the Syriac and Arabic corresponding words 
as more probable, viz., “helping” and “alert.” The Alex- 
andrine Greek substitutes Abiezer for Aspenaz, being a 
Hebrew patronymic, signifying “father of help.” “The chief 
of the eunuchs” seems the correct definition of his office. 
DD, saris, is equivalent to the Greek ewnouchos, and the 
office is similar to that at present exercised at the courts of 
Turkey and Persia as the kislar agha, “ high-chamberlain of 
the palace.” So much confidence was necessarily reposed in 
these domestic officers, that many affairs of the utmost im- 
portance and delicacy were intrusted to their care. Thus 
the children of the royal and noble families of Judea were 
committed to the care of Aspenaz. The word “5D, sepher, 
“book,” in which he was to instruct them, must be extended 
to all the literature of the Chaldees. icolampadius treats 
it as including rhetoric, eloquence, and all those elevating 
pursuits which cultivate the mind and refine the manners. 
He then proceeds to treat the narrative as an allegory ; the 
“prince of Babel, or, of the world,” represents Satan ; Daniel 
and his companions, the elect members of Christ. The family 
of David is supposed to imply this spiritual household of 
God, and the word E35, pharth-mim, nobles, is pressed 
into this service by a preference for the rendering of Saadias, 
“perfect fruit.” The eunuch isssaid to typify those spiritual 
flatterers who entice the children of God by flatteries and 
allurements to sin, and by substituting worldly sophistry for — 
true wisdom, draw souls from Christ. Although such re- 


cu 


NAMES OF THE THREE CHILDREN. 415 


flections are very profitable, yet Catvin has shewn his 
matured judgment by excluding all fanciful allegory from 
his comments. QicoLaMPapDIus supposes the king to be 
liberal and benevolent in ordering the captives to be fed 
from his table, and prudent in proposing this indulgence as 
a reward for their diligence in study. Here also the king’s 
character is allegorized ; he becomes a model of Satan en- 
ticing God’s elect, and offering them to partake of his own 
dainties, that he may win them more blandly to himself. 

In commenting, too, on the change of names, Qcolam- 
padius gives the usual meaning to the Hebrew words, but 
observes, how the name of God was omitted from them all, 
and the worthiness attributed to the creature. This, he 
thinks, to have been the eunuch’s intention, while he points 
to the change as an instance of the contrast between human 
and divine wisdom. The conduct of Daniel may be illus- 
trated by the practice of the early Christians, against whom 
it was objected by Cecilius, that they abhorred meats offered 
to idols when commanded to partake of them.’ Wieillet has 
discussed the questions—“ Whether Daniel and the rest 
learned the curious arts of the Chaldeans?” and, “ Whether 
it be lawful to use the arts and inventions.of the heathen 2” 
by collecting various opinions and summing them up with 
practical wisdom.” 


II. THE NAMES OF THE THREE CHILDREN. 


Ir is the well-known custom of the East to change the 
names of persons on their admission to public office or to 
families of distinction. The change here recorded most pro- 
bably arose from a desire to draw these young Jews away 
from all the associations of home, and to naturalize them as 
much as possible among their new associates. Hananiah is 
supposed to come from JF, chanan, to be gracious, and 
i’, yah, Jehovah, meaning “favoured of God.” Mishael from 
U ish, he is, and by, el, God, meaning “the powerful one 


1 Apud Minuc. Fel., lib. viti. Arnob. 
* Quest. 38, 39, p. 28. Edit. Cam., 1610. 





416 ‘DISSERTATIONS. 


of God.” Azariah from WY, gnezer, help, and Ms, yah, 
Jehovah: “the help of Jehovah.” <A variety of conjectures 
have been hazarded concerning the Chaldee equivalents. 
Shadrach is probably from NW, sheda, to inspire, and 
“, rak, king, being a Babylonian name for the sun ; others 
connect it with an evil deity. Meshach retains a, portion of 
its Hebrew form, and substitutes e, shak, for by, el, that 
is, the female deity Schaca, which answers to the Venus of 
the Greeks. IIIAY, gnebed-nego, is the Chaldaic phrase 
for “servant of Nebo,” one of their deities, or perhaps, ser- 
vant of burning fire. The deity Nebo furnished names to 
many chiefs and sovereigns among the Assyrians and Chal- 
dees, and modern researches and discoveries have enabled 
us to trace similar derivations with great accuracy. Com- 
pounds of Pul were used in a similar way: thus Tiglath- 
Pileser is Tiglath-Pul-Asser; and Nabo-Pul-Asser is inter- 
preted as Nabo, son of Pul, lord of Assyria. 

The name of Daniel was also changed. The word is de- 
rived from )I, dun, to judge, and Oye, el, God, meaning “a 
divine judge ;” while his new name relates to the idol Bel, 
meaning “keeper of the treasures of Bel.” 


Ill. THE PULSE. 


CHAP. i. LZ: 


CaLvin’s view of this verse is rather peculiar, and espe- 
cially his comment on Deut. vili. 3; on verse 14, p.106. The 
word “pulse,” I\'Y"r1, hazerognim, signifies the same as the 
Latin legumen, and may perhaps be extended to the cerealia 
as well. Vegetable diet generally is intended. The food 
provided from the royal table was probably too stimulating, 
and the habitual temperance of Daniel and his companions 
is here pointed out as conducing remarkably to their bodily 
health and appearance. Thus, while conscience refused to 
be “polluted,” obedience to the laws of our physical nature 
produces a corresponding physical benefit. Wéintle very 
appositely quotes Virgil, Georg. i. 73, 74, to illustrate the 
kind of food intended. 





Dissertation Sixth. 


CORESH—WAS HE CYRUS THE GREAT? 
Cuap. I. 21, 


Tue last verse of this chapter is connected with an inter- 
esting inquiry, viz, Was the Corzsu here mentioned Cyrus 
THE GREAT, or any other Cyrus? Thenoble author of “ The 
Times of Damel” has thrown much “life” into the subject 
by his elaborate defence of a theory which we now proceed 
to state and discuss. Cyrus the Great he thinks identical 
with Nebuchadnezzar the First, and Cambyses with his son 
Nebuchadnezzar the Second; the exploits of the hero of 
Herodotus and Xenophon are attributed to the former, while 
Coresh becomes but a minor character, contemporary with 
Darius the Mede, after whom he is said to reign, and before 
Darius the son of Ahasuerus. This view also brings the 
story of Esther within the period of the captivity of Babylon. 
It has always been a subject of great difficulty with com- 
mentators on Daniel, to reconcile the scriptural narrative 
with those of both Herodotus and Xenophon. The majority 
finding this impossible, have decided in favour of one or the 
other of these historians; and the best modern writers 
usually prefer Herodotus. Lowth, in his Notes on Isaiah, 
says, “ the Cyrus of Herodotus was a very different character 
from that of the Cyrus of the Scriptures and Xenophon ;” 
and Archbishop Secker has taken great pains to compare 
all the profane historians with Scripture, and shews that the 
weight of the argument lies against the truth of the Cyro- 
pedia. Whether Cyrus was the grandson of Astyages or not, 
many believe with Ctesias that he overcame him in battle, 
and founded the Persian empire upon the ruins of the Me- 

VOL, I. : 2D 


a 
‘ os 
« 
bs oa 
a4 
il 
Baha | 
. 





418 DISSERTATIONS. 


dian dynasty. It is scarcely possible that it should be left 
for this nineteenth century to discover the identity between 
a first Nebuchadnezzar and this conqueror of the East ; and 
while the clearing up of every historical discrepancy is im- 
possible, yet it is desirable to reconcile the occurrences which 
are related by both Herodotus and Xenophon. The son of 
Cambyses the Persian, and of Mandane the daughter of 
Astyages king of the Medes, is said to have conquered 
Cresus king of Lydia, enlarged the Persian empire, subdued 
Babylon ind the remnant of the Assyrian power, and placed 
his uncle Cyaxares over the united territories of Media and 
Babylon. After the death of this relative, he reigned over 
Asia, from India to Ethiopia, a territory consisting of 127 
provinces. The manner of his death is uncertain, all the 
historians differ in their accounts, but the place of his burial 
is allowed to be Pasargade, as Pliny has recorded in his 
Natural History. This tomb was visited by Alexander the 
Great, and has lately been noticed and described by European 
travellers. The plains of Murghab are watered by a river 
which bears the name of Kur, and is thought to be identical 
with the Greek Cyrus. A structure in a ruinous state has 
been found there, apparently of the same date as the re- 
mains at Persepolis, bearing cuneiform inscriptions which 
are now legible. The legend upon one of the pilasters has 
been interpreted, “I am Cyrus the Achemenian;” and no 
doubt is entertained by the learned that this monument 
once contained the remains of the founder of the Persian 
monarchy. A single block of marble was discovered by Sir 
R. K. Porter, on which he discovered a beautiful sculpture 
in bas-relief, consisting of the figure of a man, from whose 
shoulders issue four large wings, rising above the head and 
extending to the feet." The whole value of such an inserip- 
tion to the reader of Daniel is the legend above the figure, 
in the arrow-headed character, determining the spot as the 
tomb of Cyrus the Great. It shews, at the least, that he 
cannot be identified with N ebuchadnezzar. 

The manner in which the author of “The Times of 


4 os engraving of this statue is given in Vaua’s Nineveh and Persepolis, 
Pp. 





ss -.* ~ 


CORESH—WAS HE CYRUS THE GREAT ? 419 


Daniel” has commented on the prophecies relating to the 
overthrow of Babylon, is worthy of notice here. Isaiah xlv. 
14, is referred by Dr. Keith to Cyrus, and objection is made 
to the supposed fulfilment in the person of Cyrus, (p. 293.) 
Keith is said to apply to Cyrus the primary historical ful- 
filment of all the prophecies relating to the overthrow of 
Babylon, and the justness of this inference is doubted. 
Isaiah xiii.-xiv. 27, is one of the passages where the asserted 
allusion to Cyrus is questioned, since it relates to a period 
in which the power of Assyria was in existence. The 
Assyrian is supposed to be Sennacherib, to whose predecessor 
both Babylon and Media were subject. “The Chaldeans, 
mentioned in Isaiah xiii. 19, I have already explained to 
have been a colony of astronomers, planted in Babylon by 
the Assyrian kings to carry on their astronomical observa- 
tions, in which science they excelled.” (P. 299, note.) Again, 
Isaiah xxi. 2, “Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media,” is 
applied by Dr. Keith to Cyrus, to which the noble author 
objects, as well as to the supposition “that the overthrow of 
Belshazzar during his drunken revelry was predicted in 
Scripture, and that the minute fulfilment by Cyrus is re- 
corded by Xenophon.” “ The feast of Belshazzar,” it is added, 
“does not appear to correspond with the festival described 
by Xenophon, which was apparently periodical, and which, 
not a portion of the nobles, but all the Babylonians, observed 
by drunkenness and revelry during the whole night.” “It 
also agrees with the mode in which Zopyrus got possession 
of Babylon.” Calvin seems to give it this turn, “‘ A treach- 
erous one shall find treachery,” &c. (P. 301.) Further com- 
ments are then made upon Isaiah xliv. and xlv., and on 
Jeremiah |. and li., evading the force of their application to 
Cyrus, and combating with some degree of success the asser- 
tions of Keith ; for the noble author, who is earnest in pulling 
down, is ingenious in building up. “From this short exam- 
ination, it appears that the prophecy of Jeremiah (1. and li.) 
corresponds with the capture of Babylon by Darius the Mede 
of Scripture, and by Darius Hystaspes, according to Hero- 
dotus.” (P. 806.) Some writers have supposed Cyrus to be 
identical with this Darius the Mede; and Archbishop Secker 





420 DISSERTATIONS. 


acknowledges some ground for such a conjecture. “The 
first year of Darius the Mede is by the LXX. translated the 
first year of Cyrus,”' and the Canon of Ptolemy favours the 
identity. “Now all agree, as far as I have seen,” says Wintle, 
“that the year of the expiration of the captivity, or the year 
that Cyrus issued his decree in favour of the Jews, was the 
year 212 of the era of Nabonassar, or 536 a.c.; and there is 
no doubt but Darius the Mede, whoever he was, reigned, ac- 
cording to Daniel, from the capture of Babylon, till this same 
first year of Cyrus, or till the commencement of the reign 
alloted by Scripture to Cyrus the Persian.” “The Canon 
certainly allots nine years’ reign to Cyrus over Babylon, of 
which space the two former years are usually allowed to 
coincide with the reign of Cyaxares or Darius the Mede, by 
the advocates of Xenophon.” (Prelim. Diss., p. xxvii.) 
Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ctesias all agree in the original 
superiority of the Medes, till the victories of Cyrus turned 
the scale, and gave rise to the Persian dynasty. At the fall 
of Babylon, and during the life of Darius, the Medes are 
mentioned by Daniel as superior, but at the accession of 
Cyrus this order is reversed, and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 
all assign the foremost place to the Persians. 

The life of Daniel, Rosenmiiller reminds us, was prolonged 
beyond the first year of king #73, Coresh, for the tenth 
chapter informs us of his vision in the third year of that 
monarch’s reign. He explains the apparent contradiction, 
by saying that it was enough for Daniel to live, or to the 
liberation of the Jews in the first year of the reign of Coresh; 
that was the crowning event of his prolonged existence. 
The conjectures of Bertholdt and Aben-Ezra are mentioned, 
only to be disposed of by a few words of censure. An in- 
genious conjecture of a French critic is found in the Encyel. 
Theol., Liv. xxvii. The objection of Bleek, Ewald, Winer, 
and De Wette, are ably treated at length by Hengstenberg, 
and really meet with more serious attention than they de- 
serve. Itisa useless waste of precious time to enter minutely 
into every “phantasy” of the restless neology of Germany, 
while the chronology of Daniel’s life will form the subject of 


‘ Wintle’s Transl., prelim. Diss., p. xxviii. 





CORESH—WAS HE CYRUS THE GREAT ? 421 


a subsequent Dissertation. As some Neologians dwell much 
on the historian Crxsras, and lest the unlearned reader should 
be misled by their confident assertions, we may here state 
that we have only an epitome of his work preserved by the 
patriarch Photius. Bahr states that he lived about 400 B.o., 
in the reign of Darius Nothus, being a Greek physician who 
remained seventeen years at the Persian court. Diodorus 
informs us that he obtained his information from the royal 
archives, but there are so many anachronisms and errors of 
various kinds, that his statements cannot be safely followed 
asif historically correct. Ctesias, for instance, denies all re- 
lationship between Cyrus and Astyages. According to him, 
he defeated Astyages, invested his daughter Amytis with 
the honours of a queen, and afterwards married her. F. W. 
Newmay, indeed, prefers this narrative to that of both Hero- 
dotus and Xenophon, and thereby renders their testimony 
to the scriptural record uncertain and valueless. He also 
treats “ the few facts” in regard to the Persian wars, “which 
the epitomator has extracted as differing from Herodotus,” 
as carrying with them “high probability.” The closing 
scene of his career, as depicted in the narrative of Ctesias, is 
pronounced “ beyond comparison more credible” than that 
of Herodotus. This great conqueror died the third day after 
his wound in a battle with “the Derbices,” and was buried 
in that monument at Pasargadee, which the Macedonians 
broke open two centuries afterwards, (Strabo, lib. xv. § 3; 
Arrian, lib. vi. § 29,) and which has lately been explored 
and described by Morier and Sir R. K. Porter.* 

Notwithstanding the hypothesis which has lately found 
fayour with the modern writers whose works we have 
quoted, we feel that the views of the older critics are prefer- 
able ; and, on the whole, Catvin’s exposition can only be 
improved upon in minor details. The authorities enumer- 
ated by Archbishop Secker, as given by Wintle in his preface, 
p. xviii. and following, are worthy of attentive perusal ; and 
we must refer again to Hengstenberg’s able replies to a variety 
of objections which we are unable to notice. See chap. vi. 
p. 102 and following, Hdit. Ed. 

1 See Kitto’s Bibl. Cyc., art Cyr., and Vaux’s Nineveh, p. 316. 


Dissertation Seventh. 


THE KING’S DREAM. 


Cap. ii. 1. 


Irs Datz.—The assertion of the first verse has created some 
difficulty, in consequence of its not allowing time enough 
for the Jewish youth to become aman, Jerome attempts 
to solve it by supposing the point of departure to be not his 
reign over Judea, but of his dominion over other nations, as 
the Assyrians and Egyptians. He seems justified in this 
view by the words of Josephus, (Antigq., lib. x. ch. 10. § 3,) 
who distinctly refers the dream to the second year “ after 
the laying waste of Egypt.” Rosenmiiller objects to this 
explanation, and to that of C. B. Michaelis, and adopts that 
of Saadias, who supposes the dream to have happened in 
the second year, but not to be interpreted till the conclusion 
of the third. 


Its Or1a1n.—Nothing is more difficult to reduce to philo- 
sophic laws than the theory of dreams and their interpreta- 
tion. The researches of physical science have thrown more 
light on the subject than all the guesses of ancient or modern 
divines. Jerome, for instance, thought that in this case, 
“the shadow of the dream remained,” a sort of breath (aura) 
and trace remaining in the mind of the king. It is of no 
use whatever to seek for much light on these subjects in the 
works of the ancients, whether Fathers or Reformers ; they 
are constantly displaying their ignorance whenever they 
treat of subjects within the domain of psychological science. 


i tell 





THE KINGS DREAM. 4.23 


The physician has now become a far safer guide than the 
divine. Although Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was supernatural 
in its origin, yet it seems like ordinary ones in its departing 
from the sleeper while he is completely unconscious of its 
subject. | 

Physical researches have proved the truth of Calvin’s 
assertion on verse third, that “Scientia est generalis et per- 
petua.” Explanations have happily passed away from the 
theologian and the metaphysician to the physician and the 
chemist. The brain is now admitted to be the organ through 
which the mind acts during both the activity and the repose 
of the body, and dreams are now known to depend upon 
physical causes acting through the nerves upon the brain. 
The late researches of the celebrated chemist Baron Reichen- 
bach seem to have led us one step nearer to the true ex- 
planation of these singular phenomena; the discovery of 
odyle, a new imponderable agent, like calorie and elec- 
tricity, has enabled the modern philosopher to trace some 
of the laws of natural and artificial sleep. The existence 
of odyle in magnets, crystals, and the animal frame, and its 
intimate connection with lucidity, and impressions conveyed 
to the sensorium during magnetic sleep, seems now to be 
received by the best psychologists; their experiments will, 
doubtless, lead to our ascertaining the laws which regulate 
dreaming ; and if the results said to be obtained by Mr. 
Lewis, Major Buckley, and Dr. William Gregory of Edinburgh, 
are ultimately admitted as facts by the scientific world, a 
new method of explaining the operations of the mind in 
sleep will be completely established—See the “ Letters” 


published by the Professor of Chemistry in the University 


of Edinburgh, 1 vol. 12mo. 1851. 

This contrast between the ancient and modern methods of 
explanation is strikingly exemplified by Calvin's reference 
to the Daimones on page 119, which requires some elucida- 
tion to render it intelligible to the general reader. 

The philosophers of Greece held various theories concern- 
ing them, among which that recorded by Plato in the 
Pheedrus is the most singular. He commences by asserting 
the immortality of the soul, and its essential existence from 


494 DISSERTATIONS. 


all eternity. The explanation of this idea, as it really is, he 
treats as divine, but its similitude as human and readily 
comprehended. The simile is remarkable. The deities have 
all a chariot and horses, which are perfect, but ours have 
two horses, each of contrary dispositions. A whole arma- 
ment of these winged spirits are led on under the concave 
of heaven, Jupiter himself leading the armament of gods 
and daimones. In attempting to ascend, the perfect horses 
of the deities succeed in reaching the convex surface, which 
no poet ever has described or will describe worthily ; but 
some charioteers fail in their efforts, because one of their 
horses is depraved, and ever tends downwards towards the 
earth. In consequence of this depravity, the utmost con- 
fusion occurs—the daimones loose their wings and fall to 
earth, and become human souls. But the various ranks 
which arise from them deserve especial notice. Those who 
have beheld most of the glories beyond the heavenly concave 
become philosophers, and the next to them kings and war- 
riors. Seven other classes of men spring up in the follow- 
ing order :—politicians, physicians, prophets, poets, farmers, 
sophists, and tyrants. After ten thousand years, the soul 
may recover its wings, and be judged—some in heaven and 
others in courts of justice under the earth, while some pass 
into beasts and then return again to bodies of men. This 
notion of the origin of the soul from the daimones is a very 
singular one, and helps us to understand the double sense of 
the word, like that of angels among us, both good and bad. 
Though it is not difficult to perceive its connection with 
dreaming, as the medium of intercourse between the souls 
of men and the disembodied spirits, yet such conjectures — 
throw no light whatever upon the king’s dream before us. 
The passages alluded to by Calvin from Cicero are found 
in the First and Second Books De Divinatione. They consist 
of extracts from Ennius, and relate the fabled dreams of 
Priam, Tarquinius Superbus, and the mother of Phalaris, as 
well as that remarkable one which the magi are said to have 
interpreted for Cyrus. In the Second Book, Cicero argues 
wisely and strenuously against the divine origin of dreams. 
To pay the slightest attention to them he deems the mark 


ae 


rat * 
A 
, 


j THE KING'S DREAM. 425 


of a weak, superstitious, and drivelling mind. He inveighs 
strongly against the pretence to interpret them, which had 
become a complete traffic, and displayed the imposture which 
always flourishes wherever there are dupes to feed it. He 
combats the views of Aristotle, which Calvin quotes, and 
supplies much material for discussion though but little illus- 
tration of our subject. The passages above referred to will be 
found quoted and explained in Colquhoun’s History of Magic, 
vol. i. p. 203, while some useful observations on sleep and 
dreams occur in p. 60 and following. 





Dissertation Eighth. 


THE IMAGE AND ITS INTERPRETATION. 


CHAP. ii. 38. 


“Tou art this head of gold.” A question has arisen 
whether this expression relates to Nebuchadnezzar perso- 
nally, or to his empire and dynasty continued to his grand- 
son. The principle is an important one, although history 
has already removed all difficulty as to the facts. C. B. 
Michaelis, Willet, Wells, and others, consider the monarch as 
the representative of his empire, not only during his life but 
until its overthrow. In the quaint language of Wollet, “ In 
this short sentence, thow art the head of gold, there are as 
many figures as words.” Thou, that is, thy kingdom ; art, 
meaning signifiest or representest ; head, means “the anti- 
quity and priority of that kingdom, and the knowledge and 
wisdom of that nation ;” gold, “ betokeneth their riches, 
prosperity, and flourishing estate.” Compare also Is. xiy. 4, 
and Jer. li. 7, where the epithet golden alludes to the ma- 
jesty and wealth of the city. Wintle interprets the golden 
head as representing the duration of the empire of Babylon 
from Ninus to Belshazzar, a period of 700 years; but this 
is objectionable, since the father of Nebuchadnezzar was of 
a different race from the early sovereigns of Babylon, and 
the vision becomes far more emphatic, by being limited to 
Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors. @colampa- 
dius limits the period to his own times, and gives an inge- 
nious reason for the head being of gold. He quotes the ~ 
authorities for the extensive dominion of this king, viz., 





THE IMAGE AND ITS INTERPRETATION. 427 


Berosus known to us through Josephus, and Megasthenes 
through Eusebius, as well as Orosius, who extend his sway 
over Syria, Armenia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Lybia, and even 
Spain; but this commentator is not satisfied with this allu- 
sion. He explains it of the justness of his administration. 
His earlier years were more righteous than his later, and 
though many faults may be detected in him, yet he was less 
open to the charge of injustice than the Persians and Greeks 
who succeeded him. 


Ver. 39. The Szconp Kinepom is the Medo-Persian, de- 
noted according to Josephus by the two arms. Wintle very | 
appositely quotes Claudian— 

Medus ademit 
Assyrio, Medoque tulit moderamina Perses.' 

The Vulgate here introduces the adjective “ silver,” adopt- 
ing it from ver. 32, not as a translation, but, according to 
Rosenmiiller, as a modus interpretamentz. 


The Turrp Kryepom is that of the Greeks, but the Fourtu 
is variously interpreted. It relates to either the successors 
of Alexander or to the Romans. The majority of the older 
commentators agreed with Catvin in thinking it to mean 
the Roman empire, viz., Gicolampadius, Bullinger, Melanc- 
thon and QOsiander, while Grotius and Rosenmiiller, and 
Cosmas, the Indian traveller whom we have previously re-. 
ferred to as known to us through Montfaucon, advocate its 
reference to the Seleucide and Lagidee. Poole’s Synopsis will 
furnish the reader with long lists of varying opinions, each 
fortified by its own reasons, and Wellet has carefully collected 
and arranged the arguments on both sides. The divines of 
Germany have added their conjectures to those which have 
preceded them. Kuinoel in his theological commentaries 
has preserved the view of Velthusen? and others; while the 
absurdities which some of them propose may be understood 
from the opinion of Harenberg, who thinks the stone which 

1 TT. Consul., Lib. de Stil., 163, 164. 


* Animad. in Dan., ii. 27-45. Helmstad., 1783, preserved by Kwinoel, 
vol. v. p. 361, and following. 


428 DISSERTATIONS. 


destroyed the image to be the sons and grandsons of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, and Doederlein in his notes to Grotius, and 
Scharfenberg in his “ Observations on Daniel,” approve the 
foolish conjecture. 

A third view, very different from those which preceded it, 
has been ably stated and laboriously defended. Dr. Topp 
of Dublin, in his valuable “ Lectures on Antichrist,” considers 
the fourth empire as yet to come. The kingdoms of Nebu- 
chadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus, are said to be signified by 


the golden head, that of Alexander by the silver breast and - 


arms, the Roman by the brass, while the iron prefigures the 
cruel and resistless sway of Antichrist, which shall not be 
overthrown till the second advent of Messiah. We shall 
have future opportunities for discussing this theory more at 
length ; it has necessarily enlisted him in the ranks of the 
Futurists, whom Birks has confuted at length in his “ First 
Elements of Sacred Prophecy.’ We refer the student to 
these two works, each excellent of -its kind, while we defer 
the discussion of this most interesting question till we treat 
the chapters contained in our second volume. 


In descending to details, the arms of the image have been 


treated as symbols of the Medo-Persian empire; Theodoret 
considering the right arm to represent one, and the left the 
other. Various reasons have been given for the implied 
inferiority. Wellet adopts one the direct contrary of Calvin's. 
While one author treats the inferiority as moral, in conse- 
quence of a general corruption of manners, Wallet thinks the 
“ government more tolerable and equal toward the people of 
God.” Some have thought the silver to refer to remarkable 
wealth, and others to superior wisdom and eloquence. The 
belly and thighs being of brass, are thought to prefigure the 
intemperance, and yet the firmness of the Grecian powers. 
Alexander’s personal debauchery and extravagance is said 
to be hinted at. The brass is said to imply his warlike dis- 
position and his invincible spirit. The iron is thought to 
be peculiarly characteristic of the conquests of Rome; the 
mingling with clay signifies “the division and dissension of 
the kingdom,” says Willet ; while others refer it to the mar- 
riages between the Roman generals and the barbarians, or 


THE IMAGE AND ITS INTERPRETATION. 429 


generally to the intermingling of the conquerors of the world 
with the tribes whom they subdued. The two legs are said 
to be the two great divisions of the Roman empire after the 
time of Constantine, though those who treat them as belong- 
ing to the successors of Alexander, think they mean Egypt 
and Syria. The mingling with the seed of men (ver. 43) is 
interpreted of the admission of the subject allies to the free- 
dom of the state (donate civitate), and also of the fusion be- 
tween the barbarians and the Romans, in the late periods of 
the declining empire. Whether the toes represent individual 
kings or distinct kingdoms, has been discussed by Birks in 
his “ Elements of Prophecy,” pp. 124 and 130. 





Dissertation Pinth. 


THE STONE CUT WITHOUT HANDS. 
Cuaap. il. 45. 


THE STONE “CUT OUT OF THE MOUNTAIN” is generally inter- 
preted of the kingdom of Messiah, some writers applying it 
to his first Advent, and others to his second. If the fourth 
kingdom be the Roman, then the stone was cut “without 
hands,” either at the birth of Christ, or, as Calvin when 
answering Abarbanel prefers, at the first spread of the 
Gospel. The reason why a “stone” here symbolizes “the 
kingdom of the heavens,” is because Christ is spoken of in 
Scripture as a chief corner-stone. The passages in the Psalms, 
Isaiah, and Matthew, and others, are too familiar to the reader 
to require quotation. The mountain is supposed to be, either 
the Virgin Mary, or the Jewish people ; without hands, may 
allude to our Saviour’s marvellous birth, or to his spiritual 
independence of all human agency. The ancient fathers, as 
well as the modern reformers, agree in this allusion to Christ. - 
See Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryph., sec. 32; Ireneus 
adv. Her., ver. 21; Tertullian, De Resur., p. 61 ; Apolog., 
p. 869 ; Cyprian adv. Jud., lib. ii. sec. 17; Augustine in 
Psalm xeviii. 

The question of the greatest interest is, whether this pro- 
phecy has been fulfilled at the first Advent, or is yet to be 
accomplished at the second. Willet has taken Calvin to task 
for his “insufficient” answers to the “ Rabbine Barbanel,” 
but as they vary only on minor points, it is not necessary to 
quote the corrections of his thoughtful monitor. 

The theory of Joseph Mede, the great advocate of the 
year-day system, may be noticed here. He supposes the 
stone cut out at the first Advent, but not to smite the image 
till the second. This involves the existence of the Roman 
empire, throughout the whole Christian dispensation—an 








THE STONE CUT WITHOUT HANDS. 431 


admission that Calvin would not make, and should not be 
hastily allowed. Dr. Topp correctly remarks, “it assumes 
the Roman empire to be still in existence,” and it further 
assumes that the prophecies revealed to Daniel advance be- 
yond the first Advent of Messiah. Carvin and the older 
commentators treat them as terminating with the establish- 
‘ment of the Gospel dispensation. TxRruLiray, indeed, ap- 
plies this passage to the second Advent, but Maiponarvus 
considers that expositor as “insanus,” who thinks the Roman 
empire to be still existing. Yet both Brernarmrne and 
Birks argue for its present continuance, and each founds 
upon it his own views of Scripture prophecy. 

As we shall have other opportunities for discussing these 
questions in our second volume, we simply state that Canvin 
and our chief Reformers considered all Daniel’s prophecies 
summed up and satisfied by the first Advent of Christ. As 
they did not adopt the year-day system, they treated these 
predictions as pointing the Jews to the coming of their Mes- 
siah, and as depicting the various kingdoms and sovereigns 
which should arise, and affect by their progress and dissen- 
sions the Holy Land. It never once occurred to them that 
the Book of Daniel relates in any way to the details of the 
history of modern Europe, and of either the Court or the 
Church of Rome. 3 

Another view hinted at, but disapproved by Brsuop 
Newroy, is that the third empire relates solely to Alexander, 
the fourth to his successors in Syria and Egypt, and the 
stone cut without hands to the Roman dominion. But with 
this popular writer as well as with Joseph Mede—the received 
view of the iron portion of the image is “little less than an 
article of faith.’ The stone he reminds us was quite differ- 
ent from the image, so the kingdom of Christ was utterly 
distinct from the principalities of this world. He asserts 
that its smiting power was displayed at the first Advent, 
and is continued throughout the subsequent history of the 
world. But as Brsnop Newron is an advocate of the histo- 
rical system of interpreting days for years, which CaLvin 
did not uphold, it is unnecessary to quote him further. The 

' Mede’s Works, Book iv., Ep. vi. p. 736. 


432 DISSERTATIONS. 


reader will, however, derive benefit from consulting the 
authorities which he has brought forward in rich abun- 
dance. As he is a valuable and a popular expounder of 
prophecy, it is necessary to make this passing allusion to so 
valuable an author ; while the reader of these Lectures must 
be cautioned against adopting any views of prophecy which 
are inconsistent with the great principle upon which the 
Almighty deals with us, in our new covenant through Christ 
our Lord. 

(EcoLaAMPADIUS in his comment upon verse 44, treats the 
kingdom of Christ as spiritual and eternal; like other earnest 
writers, he considers the troubles of his own days as pecu- 
liarly the marks of Antichrist. The blasphemy of the Ma- 
hometans, and the arrogance of the “Cata-baptists,” seem 
to him intolerable. He is especially vehement against 
those who urge the necessity of a second baptism, and deny 
the value of outward ordinances, as the ministry and the 
sacraments; and argues for the permanence of external 
ceremonies till the second Advent of Christ. | 

He considers verse forty-five to relate to the second com- 
ing of Christ and the resurrection of mankind to judgment, 
but does not condemn the opinion of Jerome and other 
“fathers,” who refer it to the incarnation of our Lord. The 


mountain, says he, is Zion, and the people the Jews, and by - 


his crucifixion, Christ is said to grow into a mountain and 
fill the earth. He quotes Hippolytus as sanctioning its 
reference to the second Advent ; and objects to the views of 
Irenzeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius, who as Chiliasts turned 
this passage to their purpose. The gross ideas of some Jews 
and Christians, respecting a thousand years of carnal enjoy- 
ment upon earth, are wisely reprobated, and some very 
profitable remarks are made upon the spiritual reign of 
Christ in the hearts and souls of his people. C&colampadius 
is on this occasion remarkably practical and searching in 
his comment ; he is not so critical and literal as Cavin, but _ 
he develops more of the deep feelings of the mature Chris- 
tian than any other Reformer does on the Op TESTAMENT. 


1See DIssERTATION x11. Edit. Lond. 1832. 





‘7 eee 


cipal allel 


Dissertation Tenth. 


THE COLOSSUS AT DURA. 


Cuap, iii. 1. 


Many points of interest are connected with the narrative 
of this chapter. 


a. The teme of its erection. This is unknown; various con- 
jectures have been offered, but not the slightest histo- 
rical foundation proved for any of them. Theodoret 
and Chrysostom fix upon the eighteenth year of the 
king’s reign. 

B. The object of its erection. It was probably intended to 
entrap the Jews and all conscientious worshippers of 
Jehoyah. Calvin’s view is adopted by the best writers. 

y. In whose honour was it erected? Willet agrees with 
Calvin in thinking it was consecrated to some deity, as 
Bel, the chief object of his worship. 

8. The place of its erection was the plain called by Ptolemy, 
Deira, between Chaltopis and Cissia, in the region of 
Susan.’ The editor of the Chisian Codex derives it 
from the Persian word dooran, meaning an enclosure, 
thus strengthening the view of Jerome, that it was 
erected in an enclosure within the city. 


A singular feature in the earliest commentators is the 
mystical application of such subjects. Chrysostom, for in- 
stance, takes it to denote covetousness;7 and Jerome, (in 


. loc.,) false doctrine and heresy ; and Jrenwus, the pomp and 


pride of the world, under the mastery of Satan.° 


1 Ptol., Geog., lib. vi. cap. 3. 
2 Hom., xviii., in Ep. ii. ad Cor. 
8 Adv. Heer., lib. v. . 
VOL. I. 2E 





434 DISSERTATIONS. 


The disproportion of its form has occasioned some differ- 
ence among expositors. Bertholdt, as usual, is full of fault- 
finding. “How was it possible for it to stand of itself?” 
But there is no proof that the statue had throughout a 
human form. Columns with a human head on the top were 
often erected by the Asiatics in honour of their deities. 
Minter in his Religion of the Babylonians, (p. 59,) treats it 
as similar to the Amycleean Apollo, a simple column, to which 
a head and feet were added. Gesenius, too, has observed 
that the ruins of the tower of Belus are imposing only from 
their colossal size, and not from their proportions ; the Baby- 
lonians preferred everything huge, irregular, and grotesque. 
Idol-pillars were commonly erected by the Assyrians in 
honour of their deities. If, however, we strictly limit the 
word moby, tzelem, to a human figure complete in all its 
parts, we may still vindicate the truth of Daniel by allowing 
for a pedestal which would be necessary. The proportion 
of six to one is correct for a human figure; hence with a 
pedestal, ten to one by no means violates the principles of 
art. Of the difficulty of raising it we are no judges. The 
able remarks of Heeren are exactly suited to the oceasion,— 
“The circle of our experience is too limited for us to assign 
at once the scale of what is possible in other lands, in a dif- 
ferent clime, and under other circumstances. Do not the 
Egyptian pyramids, the Chinese wall, and the rock temple 
at Elephanta, stand, as it were, in mockery of our criticism, 
which presumes to define the limits of the united power of 
whole nations ?”? 

The material of the Colossus is worthy of notice. It is 
scarcely possible that it could be all of gold. Some have 
thought it to have been hollow like the Colossus of Rhodes, 
which exceeded it in height by ten cubits. (Pliny His. Nat., 
xxxlv. § 18.) Chrysostom thought it made of wood, and 
only covered with gold plating, and certainly we have autho- 
rity for such a view from Exod. xxxix. 38, where an altar 
made of acacia wood, and covered with gold, is termed 


' See Selden de Diis Syr., c. iii. p. 49; Jablonski, Panth. AEY., p. 
Ixxx ; Gesenius in Encye., Art. Babylon, th. vii. p. 24; Miinter, p. 59 ; and 
Heeren, Ideen, 1, 2, p. 170, ap. Heng. 





i eel 


COLOSSUS AT DURA. 435 


golden ; and that in verse 39, merely covered with brass, is 


termed brazen. The immense treasures heaped together at 
Babylon favour the possibility of sufficient gold being at 
hand to cover so large a statue; while the weight of the 
golden statue of Bel, with its steps and seat, as recorded both 
by Herodotus and Diodorus, is far from sufficient to allow of 
their being massive gold throughout. Thus profane history 
becomes exceedingly valuable in enabling us to interpret 
correctly the language of the Old Testament. Many minds 
are inclined at once to discredit the erection of any such 
colossus all of gold; the mechanical and artistic difficulties 
are far too great ; but when we find such historians giving 
us accounts of similar erections made of plated wood, or con- 
sisting of a mere hollow case, plated over, the whole of the 
difficulties vanish, everything is reduced at once within the 
bounds of credibility, the historical accuracy of Daniel is 
vindicated, the captious insinuations of disbelievers are 
repelled, and the mind of the earnest inquirer is at rest 
on the firm rock which patient investigation has provided 
for it. 

Hengstenberg’s attention is occupied throughout this 
chapter with noticing the objections of his Neologian prede- 
cessors. De Wette, Bertholdt, and Bleek, have each at- 
tempted to discredit the historical veracity of Daniel. The 
period of the erection of the image— if ever erected at all— 
was that of Antiochus Epiphanes, say they, and his charac- 
ter is the supposed original of the fabulous Nebuchadnezzar, 
and the writer “merely invented these tales in order to 
inspire the Jews with fortitude under the religious persecu- 
tions of Antiochus.”’ Bertholdé also considers the address 
of the three Jews to the king as an instance of “revolting 
insolence and levity ;’ while Theodoret is quoted as “ being 
amazed at the courage of these youths, their wisdom, their 
piety,” in language exactly in the spirit of Calvin himself 
The preparation of the furnace has created some difficulty, 
especially when Chardin relates that a whole month has 
been taken up with feeding two ovens with fire, for the pur- 


* Reply to Objections, p. 70. 
? Opp., vol. il. p. 1110, ap. Heng., p. 73; Voy. en Perse, iv. p. 276. 





436 DISSERTATIONS. 


pose of destroying criminals; but this objection is removed 
by the natural supposition that the king anticipated refusal, 
and had prepared beforehand to execute summary vengeance 
on all who disobeyed. “What result is gained by the 
miracle?” ask the disbelievers. “How disproportionate was 
the colossus,” he exclaims, “no such statue ever existed, no 
such miracle was ever performed.” But history puts to flight 
a whole host of conjectures, for Herodotus mentions a statue 
in the temple of Belus, and Diodorus Siculus confirms his 
account.! Hengstenberg has collected a long list of autho- 
rities in proof of the erection of such statues by the ancient 
monarchs of the East, and we refer to his valuable labours 
for a reply to objections, which are happily unknown to the 
majority of our readers. 


* Lib. i. see. 183, and lib. ii, sec. 9. 


Dissertation Eleventh. 


THE NAMES OF THE MAGISTRATES, 


CuapP. iii. 2. 


CaLvin has very judiciously declined to enter into the 
signification of each of these officers, as there is great diffi- 
culty in ascertaining the exact duties to be assigned to each. 
The best method of determining this point is to follow up 
the meaning of the corresponding words in the cognate 
languages of the East, and to bear in mind the officers of 
state at present in use. We will here state a few results of 
our researches, referring the reader for fuller information to 
Castell’s valuable Lexicon, and Rosenmiiller’s and Winile’s 
comments, and punctuating the words after the best foreign 
scholars, 


NUDTIUNN, achas-dar-penaja, is derived from the Persian 
by both Castell and Rosenmiiller; its meaning is 
majestatis janitores. Wintle translates correctly satraps. 

NJ1D, signaja, is also Persian ; Rosenmiiller renders it 
supremus prefectus, and Wintle, “senators,” implying 
a viceroy of the first rank. 

NMI, pach-vatha, is clearly equivalent to the Oriental 
“pasha.” 

NUIT, adar-gaz-raja, the Septuagint translates by “con- 

“suls,” and Theodotion and Jerome by “leaders,” and 
Wintle by “ judges,” 
82'14, gedab-raja, is commonly rendered “treasurers.” 


DISSERTATIONS. 


svn, dethab-raja, signifies the superior hers ed 
law. — ts 
NYMAN, tiph-taya, is clearly connected with the 1 
word mujti, who is the chief religious afleer 
Mohamedan faith. © 
“e by, sil-tonei, a general expression ke A gove : 
Joseph Jacchiades has explained it fully in his 
_ paraphrase. ae 
Poole’s Synopsis may also be consulted with t 
Gcolampadius departs here from his usual custo 
ing into the criticism of these words, and quot 
Saadias, the Septuagint, and the Chaldee parap 








Dissertation Twelfth. 
THE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. 


CuapP. ili. 5, 


Ir is not possible to define, as Calvin reminds us, what 
these instruments were. Researches have been made into 
the etymology of the Chaldee words, and a comparison insti- 
tuted between the properties implied and those of modern 
use and construction. Travellers in the East have compared 
the music of the present day with that recorded in this verse. 
A similarity, too, has been pointed out between the instru- 
. ments of the Syrians and Greeks. As no practical advan- 
tage can arise from quoting the conjectures of various writers, 
we simply refer to Wintle and Rosenmiiller in loc., where 
some interesting information is given i eatenso. Poole’s 
Synopsis also supplies much verbal criticism. colampadius 
passes by altogether any explanation of these instruments, 
but makes some very appropriate practical comments. ‘True 
religious worship, he justly. observes, does not need this 
variety of external incentive ; a pure conscience with trust 
in God and obedience to his laws is the best music in his 
eyes, while he applauds Plato’s description of the best music 
which a soul can offer to its Creator. Antichrist, he asserts, 
delights in such outward and sensual gratifications, while 
the advanced Christian worships in spirit, calmly, quietly, 
and inwardly. True religion is thus the antagonist of all 
outward and idolatrous service; it is not prompted by fear 
~ nor promoted by.a tyrant’s command, but requiring no visible 
parade of instrumental minstrelsy, it worships with a cheer- 
ful heart and a free and buoyant spirit, inspired by the hope 
of everlasting life through the promises of God in Christ. 
This sentiment, although 300 years old, is worthy of the 
Reformer who uttered and maintained it. 


Dissertation Thirteenth. 


THE SON OF GOD. 


CaHapP. iii. 25. 


Tus translation of the Chaldee words nbs 42, leber- 
alehin, in our version is liable to mistake. Wentle has more 
correctly rendered them “a son of a god.” It was far more 
likely that the heathen king would express his astonishment 
in this way than ailude to what he could not comprehend, 
the appearance of the Logos in human form. Calvin cor- 
rectly states it to be “one of the angels.” Angels are called 
in Scripture, says Wells, sons of God, as in Job i. 6, and 
xxxvill. 7. ‘Some angelic appearance” is the correct com- 
ment of Wintle. Jerome takes it as a type of Christ de- 
scending into Hades, and Miinter asserts it to be our Lord 
himself. Wells neither affirms nor denies this view, which 
has been held by a number of commentators who consider 
that the Logos appeared in human form on several occasions 
during patriarchal and Ante-Messianic times, Justin Martyr 
makes the same assertion when describing the pre-existence 
of the Logos to his philosophic persecutors. Wvlle¢ leans to 
this view, after summing up a variety of opinions from able 
writers. Some of his reflections on the general narrative are 
edifying ; but his discussion on the nature of angels is fan- 
cifully unprofitable, and his ignorance of natural science is 
singularly displayed in his treatment of the ordinary and 
extraordinary action of fire. Rosenmiiller translates, “ like 
a son of the gods,” that is an angel, and the writers quoted — 
by Poole come to the same conclusion; but Gcolampadius 
thinks the appearance to be that of Immanuel himself, and 
refers to other instances of his being visible to Abraham, 
Jacob, and Moses. He fortifies his view by quotations from 
Chrysostom, Apollinarius, and other ecclesiastical authorities. 








issertation jFourteenth. 


A WATCHER. 


CuapP. iv. 13. 


Tuts is the correct rendering of the word VY, gnir, but it 
has been conjectured that its meaning is the same as 8, 
tzir, being the Chaldee word for “a messenger.” Jerome 
ingeniously conjectures it to be the same as the Greek word 
Iris, the messenger of heaven. In Job xxxvi. 30, the Heb. 
is VN, air, where Origen reads Jrin according to Archbishop 
Secker. Willet replies to the question “ why the angels are 
called watchmen,” and quotes Calvin’s reason with approba- 
tion. Rosenmiiller approves of Jerome’s conjecture, and 
adduces Hom. Odys., lib. xviii. 5, in confirmation of it. He 
takes “the watcher and holy one” as a hendia-dys, remind- 
ing us that in Job xv. 15, angels are called “ holy ones” by 
the figure awtonomasia. The Scholia of the Alexandrine 
Codex interpret the word er, as equivalent to angel, and 
Isidorus Pelusiota, according to Rosenmiiller, (Ep. 177, lib. 
ii.,) considers the word to refer to the chief of angels. The 
Syrians in their hymns join watchers with angels as rejoicing 
over converted sinners, according to the learned editors of 
_ the Chisian Codex, p. 127, edit. Rom. See also Critica Sacra, 
vol. vii. p. 3246, edit. Freof. The view of Cicolampadius is 
similar to those already expressed, but he takes the word 
“watcher” in the sense of an exciter or herald of divine 
punishment, &. Saadias supposes a terrible destroyer to be 
intended. 





EZ issertation #iftecnth. 


THE MADNESS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 


CHAP. iv. 25. 


Tue narrative of this chapter has met with much disbelief 
among the sceptical school of theology. The want of cor- 
responding profane history is a subject of complaint. Origen 
found himself deserted by all ancient historians, and Jerome 
searched them in vain for any confirmation of the sacred 
text. We must remember, however, that the historians 
whom we reckon ancient, are very modern with reference to 
these early times. Megasthenes, for instance, wrote rather 
earlier than Berosus, about 280 A.c., at the court of Seleucus — 
Nicator, king of Babylon, and we have only portions of their 
writings second hand. Dvocles, the author of a Persian his- — 
tory, and Abydenus, of an Assyrian and Median, obtained 
their materials from Chaldee traditions, many ages after the 
events recorded. The Chaldee chroniclers, Hengstenberg 
assures us, were notorious for their national vanity and 
boasting,’ and were not likely to record anything derogatory 
to their earliest hero. But even Bertholdt is compelled to 
confess that Abydenus has preserved a legend similar to the 
narrative of this chapter. “On ascending the roof of his 
palace, he became inspired by some god, and delivered him- 
self as follows:—Babylonians! I Nebuchadnezzar foretell 
you a calamity that is to happen, which neither my ancestor 
Bel nor queen Beltis can persuade the Fates to avert. There 
shall come a Persian mule, (one having parents of different 


1 P. 86. See also as there quoted, Nicbuhr His. Gew., p. 189. 
Schlosser, Geshichte, &c., p. 172; and Volney, Recherches, &e., p. 150. 





gia 


THE MADNESS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR. 443 


countries,) having your own gods in alliance with him, and 
shall impose servitude upon you, with the head of a Mede, 
the boast of the Assyrians.”* Now madness and inspiration 
were usually connected by the ancients ; the time and place 
too, correspond with Daniel’s narrative ; the extasis occurred 
after the completion of his conquests, and the phrase, “by 
some god,” refers to a foreign deity, whom we know to be the 
Jehovah of the Hebrews. The narrative of the frenzy which 
rendered him unfit for government, is allowed to be credible 
by the chief sceptics of the continent. Michaelis allows 
“ that this calamity more frequently attacks great and ex- 
traordinary minds than ordinary men.” Our physicians can 
now explain the reason through their improved knowledge 
of the brain and its functions. Pathological and psycholo- 
gical science is here more useful than all the conjectures of 
disbelieving theologians. In the early days of the Church, 
the greatest difficulty was found in taking this narrative 
literally: hence expositors treated it as an allegory. The 
king was held to represent Satan falling from heaven, and 
the whole account of his dwelling with the beasts of the field 
was taken figuratively, and rejected historically. Jerome, 
however, while he records this view at great length, adheres 
to the literal account.’ 

The disbelief of the narrative above referred to may have 
arisen from an erroneous interpretation of the sacred text. 
For some writers have affirmed a complete metamorphosis 
of the man into the beast ; a conclusion by no means war- 
ranted by the language of the passage. Tertullian has cor- 
rectly explained the clause, “his hair became like eagle’s 
feathers,” by capilli incuria horrorem aquilinum preferente, 
since it was a natural consequence of his wild mode of life, 
and a usual mark of the sensualizing effect of prolonged in- 
sanity. And with reference to the time of this affliction, 
Hengstenberg quotes Calvin with approbation, for agreeing 
with the idea of an indefinite period implied by the word 
“seven.” Calvin, however, inclines too much towards the 


1 Euseb. Prep, Evan., |. ix. § 41, p. 456, Hdié. Colon., and Chron. 
Armen., p. 59. ‘ ’ 

2 See Rosenmiiller’s extract from his Commentary on this chapter, 
Dan., p. 171, where the original Greek of Abydenus is also given at length. 





4.44 DISSERTATIONS, 


theory of the indefinite use of definite numbers. There seems 
no good reason why the number “seven” should not be taken 
strictly and literally, nor why the word “times” ]*31Y, gni- 
danin, should not mean years. Even Hengstenberg gives way 
too much to the plausible conceits of his wily antagonists. 
Rosenmiiller correctly limits the expression to seven years, 
a period by no means unnatural for the continuance of a 
highly excited state of the brain, producing mania, accom- _ 
panied by all the symptoms mentioned in this chapter. 
@colampadius views it as a case of mental disease, and 
quotes many similar narratives from Aben-Ezra, Pausanias, 
and Augustine, bringing forward the fables of the heathen 
poets, as illustrating the passage. [or the opinion of Tertul- 
lian, and various Jewish and continental writers, Kitto’s 
Bibl. Cyclop. may be consulted, especially as the view there 
set forth by Dr. Wright is sound, judicious, and practical. 


Dissertation Sixteenth. 


THE EDICT OF PRAISE. 


CuHap. iv. oi: 


Tuts monarch probably lived but a single year after his 
recovery ; and some writers have thought that his restora- 
tion produced a conversion to the worship of the one true 
God. But Hengstenberg agrees with our author: “ Compare 
CaLVIN on the passages,” says he, “who strikingly proves. 
from them the incorrectness of the opinion of very many ex- 
positors as to the radical and entire conversion of Nebuchad- 
nezzar.” Calvin is clearly right, for it was customary with 
the Persians to blend the doctrines of Zoroaster with the 
Babylonian astrology.’ The scriptural language of the king 
has been treated as an argument against the authenticity of 
the decree. Hichhorn and Bertholdt object to his speaking 
like an orthodox Jew in the phraseology of the Old Testa- 
ment. But the affinity of certain phrases with other passages 
of Scripture, is no argument against its authenticity. The 
monarch had held much intercourse with Daniel; he had 
doubtless heard his method of expressing reverence and 
respect for the one true God, and he would repeat such ex- 
pressions the more exactly in proportion to his want of per- 
sonal experience of their meaning. In the case of the edict 
of Cyrus, brief as it is, several references are found to the 
prophecies of Isaiah.” As to the change of person from the 
third to the first, Hengstenberg approves of Calvin's sugges- 
tion. @colampadius considers the king really converted, 
and through knowing the angel to be the Christ, he supposes 
him not only a convert, but an apostle. This is far too 
favourable a view of his character; but it is instructive to 
ascertain the decisions of various eminent Reformers, and 
to observe which of them stands the scrutinizing test of an 
appeal to posterity. 


1 Schlosser, p. 279, ap. Heng. 
2 Kleinert, p. 142, and V. Colln. ap. Heng., p. 96. 





Bissertation Seventeenth. 


BELSHAZZAR AND THE FEAST. 
Cuap. i. 1, 2. 


Tu1s monarch is here said to be the son of Nebuchad- 
nezzar. The Duke of Manchester takes this literally, while 
the usual opinion is that he was his grandson. “ No king,” 
says he, “in Berosus, Megasthenes, or Polyhistor; corre- 
sponds with him. The Scripture says that Nebuchadnezzar 
was his father, which most people Say means grandfather, 
and it is not to be denied, that by son, grandson may be in- 
tended ; but in this case it is contrary to all the evidence 
we have on the subject. The author of the Scholastical 
History reports that Belshazzar was son of the daughter of 
Darius. Nebuchadnezzar the Second did, as I conceive, 
marry the daughter of Darius, which would make Belshazzar 
his son, But admitting that Belshazzar was paternal grand- 
son of Nebuchadnezzar, none of the successors of Nebuchad- 
nezzar could have been in that relation to him.” The Per- 
sian, writer Merkhond is the next quoted, by whose help the 
duke identifies Ka’oos with Nebuchadnezzar the First, Afra- 
siab with Astyages, and Siyawesh, the son of Ka’oos, with 
Belshazzar. It is then conjectured that this king never 
reigned except during his father’s lifetime: if he was “the 
king” during his father’s madness, the omission of his name 
by profane historians is thus accounted for. An Oxford 
MS. is quoted to shew “that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshaz- 
zar were reigning at Babylon when Darius and Coresch were 
reigning over Persia.”? 3 


1 «& The Times of Daniel,” pp. 256-258. 





BELSHAZZAR AND THE FEAST. 4.4.7 


This hypothesis interferes so much with the ordinary de- 
ductions from ancient historians, that we must not pass it 
over without special notice. 

The received hypothesis has been so clearly stated by 
Wells, that reference to it is all that is needed.’ Jeremiah 
(chap. xxvii. 6) had predicted that Nebuchadnezzar’s king- 
dom was to be prolonged through the life of his son and his 
son’s son. Ptolemy’s Astronomical Canon is the best known 
authority for the history of Nebuchadnezzar’s successors, as 
we have detailed them in a former Dissertation, and they 
are also found in a readable form in Stackhouse’s History of 
the Bible.” The last of these kings is Nabonadius, and he 
is supposed to be the same as the Nabonnedus of Berosus, 
the Labynetus of Herodotus, and the Belshazzar of Daniel.’ 
During his reign, says Berosus, the walls of the city near the 
river were strengthened by brick-work and bitumen; and in 
its seventeenth year Cyrus advanced against Babylon, the 
king met him with a large army, but was defeated, and 
then enclosed himself within Borsippa. Cyrus then took 
Babylon, and having determined to pull down its outer for- 
tifications, he returned to Borsippa and besieged it. Na- 
bonnedus then gave himself up, and Cyrus permitted him to 
close his life peaceably in Carmania, where he remained till 
his death. The narrative of Herodotus is slightly at variance 
with this. Cyrus made war against Labynetus, the son of 
Nitocris, a very spirited and powerful queen, andksucceeded 
to the kingdom of Assyria “from his fathers’”* Having 
turned the stream of the river Euphrates, he entered the 
city through its bed, and when the centre was captured, 
those who dwelt at the extremities were ignorant of their 
disaster, for they “were celebrating a festival that day with 
dancing and all manner of rejoicing, till they received cer- 
tain information of the general fate. And thus Babylon 
was the first time taken.” Herodotus also records its second 
capture through the treachery of Zopyrus, in the reign of 

1 Annotat., chap. v. p. 46. 

2 P. 984, edit. fol., vol. ii., 1744. , 

* Berosus ap. Joseph. and ap. Grotius de Veritat, lib. iii., Note; Heng- 


stenberg’s remarks on this passage in Berosus are valuable, p. 264. 
* Lib. i., sec. 188. 


448 ' DISSERTATIONS. 


Darius Hystaspes, (lib. iii. sec. 159 ;) and with this second 
capture the noble duke supposes the scriptural narrative 
to be co-incident. 

The Cyropeedia of Xenophon affords its testimony to a 
similar event, and as its historic value has been altogether 
denied, we cannot certainly pronounce the event the same. 
Vitringa has vindicated its historical truth, and Gesenius 
and Bertholdt have admitted it. Hengstenberg quotes lib. vii. 
sec. 5, combines it with Herod., lib. i. sec. 191, and remarks, 
“This testimony of Xenophon, too, is so much the more in our 
favour, as it confirms the particular circumstance that the 
nobles were at the feast assembled at the table of the king.”* 
He adds, “The precise agreement of Daniel with Herodotus 
and Xenophon is acknowledged by Minter, |. ¢. p. 67, to be 
astonishing, and even Gesenius, Z. Jes. i., p. 655, cannot help 
calling it very astonishing.” For a fuller discussion of all 
details, we refer at length to his conclusive work, merely 
giving our vote in his favour, and against the ingenious 
hypothesis which it has become necessary to state and ex- 
plain. 


Tue Great Feast.—The original word for feast is “bread,” 
and this being united with “wine,” becomes the usual mode 
of describing an eastern feast, where the people are all great 
eaters of bread. “To eat bread,” and to “set on bread,’ 
is the scriptural method of indicating a feast. The number 
of the guests may not have amounted to a thousand, as this 
is an eastern expression for a large and surprising number, 
yet it is not incredible, since Harmer has informed us that 
“a quadrangular court, within the first or outer gate of the 
palace, was made use of for this purpose.”? Wallet reminds 
us of this eastern way of multiplying numbers by alluding 
to the 10,000 guests said to be present at Alexander’s feast, 
and each of whom received a golden cup. Ptolemy, the 
father of Cleopatra, made a similar banquet for Pompey. It 
is supposed to have been an annual solemnity in honour of 


+ P. 261; see also Vitringa Comment., Z. Jes. i. 417; and Heeren, i. 2, 
p- 157, ap. Heng. 
2 As quoted by Wintle, p. 79, vol.i. p. 191. 





oes are oe 


BELSHAZZAR AND THE FEAST. 449 


some deity, and the art of “tasting of the wine” (verse 2) 
alludes to the custom of tasting the libation previous to 
the sacrifice. Wintle very appositely quotes Virgil, 4n., 
lib. i. 741,— 

— & Primaque libato swmmo tenus attigit ore.” 


This view is rendered highly probable by the Chaldean cus- 


tom recorded by Athenzeus,' of sacrificing to small images, 


of various metals, in human shape, an idolatry described in 
Baruch, chap. vi. 3. Wallet quotes Junius as stating that 
this feast occurred on the 16th day of the month Loon, when 
it approached in character the Saturnalia and Bacchanalia 
of the Greeks. “Tasting the wine” is rendered by the 
Vulgate and the Alexandrine version as if its sense were 
“drunken,” and thus the general idea of licentious revelry 
is carried out. 


1 Deipnosophist, ch. xiii. 2. 


VOL. I. oF 


“ee 


Dissertation Lighteenth, 
THE QUEEN. 


Cuap. v. 10. 


Carvin doubts whether this was the wife or grandmother 
of Belshazzar. But there is another possible solution. Prd- 
deaua supposes she was the mother of the king, following 
the narrative of Herodotus, though Grotius and Josephus 
represent her as the widow of Nebuchadnezzar, The 
author of “The Times of Daniel” differs from the received 
view of the times of Nitocris; she reigned, he concludes, 
“in the generation before Nebuchadnezzar’s father.’ Her 
name is not found in the Astronomical Canon, and conse- 
quently either Herodotus or the Canon must be mistaken. 
Nitocris, says Herodotus, lived five generations after Semira- 
mis, but then, according to Bryant, eight different periods 
have been assigned for his reign, between a. o. 2177 and 713. 
Notwithstanding the celebrity which Herodotus has con- 
ferred upon his name, it is impossible now to ascertain 
whether she was the queen-mother alluded to in the text, 
but it is equally injudicious to pronounce positively that she 
was not. Hengstenberg has discussed this question with his 
usual sagacity. Heeren makes her the contemporary of Ne- 
buchadnezzar, and probably his wife; but Hengstenberg 
inclines to the view of her being the queen-mother. “We 
may then justly compare what Herodotus says of Nitocris 
with that which occurs here of the queen, and it only need 
be quoted to shew a perfect agreement.” ~ Rosenmiiller - 
agrees with Jerome in thinking her the widow of Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and Gicolampadius adopts the same view, when com- 
menting with great spirit and animation on this point. 

‘P1893; 


? See Prideaua, i. p. 227; Eichhorn, i. p. 79; Jahn Archeeol., ii. i. 
p. 217. 


— ee. a Ne OLS aa Se ee eee 


Dissertation Pincteenth. 


THE HAND-WRITING ON THE WALL. 


CHAP. v. 25. 


WE are constantly reminded of the necessity of a know- 
ledge of words, if we would interpret aright the Word of 
God. That record which is emphatically “The Word,” is 
composed in detail of many words, and it is literally impos- 
sible so to understand Holy Scripture as to expound it 
fully, without a knowledge and use of single expressions. 
This remark is peculiarly applicable in the present instance. 
CaLvin takes each word separately in the perfect tense, 
while in the Arabic, the past participle is used, viz., mensu- 
ratum, appensum, divisum. 

NID, mene, is the participle piel of the verb N39, mana, 
numeravit, meaning to set bounds to the continuance 
of anything. 

bpn, tekel, is the Chaldee word for the Hebrew bow, shekel, 
to weigh—the shekel being a standard weight of 
silver money. The reference is to the Almighty 
weighing in the balances of Justice the conduct of the 
king. 

PD 5), upharsin et dividentes ; Calvin thus literally, and 
Rosenmiiller explains that the active participle plural 
is taken impersonally, and is thus equal to the part. 
pass. sing. The ending}, n, it must be recollected, 
is the Chaldee equivalent for the Hebrew DB. 

The allusion to the balance in relation to a kingdom is 
common among ancient classical writers. Homer, Iliad, lib. 
xxii. and Virgil, Ain., lib. xii., contain instances; as well as 
the Paradise Lost, Book vi. 


Dissertation Twentieth. 


THE MEDES AND PERSIANS. 
Cuap. v. 28. 


Ir is highly interesting to the student of prophecy to 
trace the origin and progress of these empires which have 
gained repute in the history of our race. This interest is 
increased when we discover that the narratives of profane 
writers illustrate the sacred text. And as great efforts have 
been made to impugn the authenticity of this Book, we 
must again refer to some of the arguments which induce 
the best divines to rely on its historical accuracy. 

The history of Media and its people frequently impinges 
upon the eccentric orbit of the Jewish tribes. It has been 
supposed that the name of the country was derived from 
15, chadi, the third son of Japhet, but this conjecture is 
rendered futile, when we remember that the first establish- 
ment of the kingdom dates only 150 years before Cyrus. 
It must never be forgotten, when treating of these early 
times, how very modern all writers are who lived after the 
times of Solomon. To us they appear ancient, and their 
authority for the truth of an event conclusive; but those 
historians of Asia, upon whom we are compelled to rely, 
lived many ages after the occurrences which they record. 
It seems now to be admitted, that we have lost many centu- 
ries between the flood and Abraham ; hence the attempt to 
assign the origin of any empire to the immediate descen- 
dants of Noah is highly deceptive. We can only take the 
best testimony which we have, but with it we must correct 
the uncertainty of even the most positive assertions. The 
Medes, if we may trust Herodotus, were an offset from the 
_ Assyrians. They broke off from their sway, after the Assy- 
rians had held the empire of Upper Asia for five hundred 
and twenty years. The interesting story of Deioces, and 
the foundation of Ecbatana is recorded, the account of that 


THE MEDES AND PERSIANS. 453 


city corresponding precisely with that handed down to us in 
the Book of Judith.* In process of time the neighbouring 
tribes were subdued and united, till Phraortes, having re- 
duced the Persians under his dominion, led the united 
nations against the Assyrians. Cyaxares his son succeeded 
him, and both extended and consolidated the Median sway. 
Astyages, the grandfather of Cyrus, was his son and succes- 
sor; and during the whole period of these monarchs’ reigns 
province after province was added to the growing empire. 
The constant testimony of history from Herodotus to Ctesias 
asserts the acquisition of Media by Cyrus to have been a 
forcible seizure. Here our chief object is to impress upon 
the reader the scantiness of our early materials, and the 
distance of time at which some of the historians who record 
them lived after the “events. Ctesias, for instance, was a 
young physician at the Court of Artaxerxes, the brother of 
Cyrus the younger. Although he wrote twenty-three books 
of Persian history, we have but a few fragments collected by 
the diligence of Photion. Our attention is therefore turned 
with the greatest earnestness towards the deciphering of 
the monuments which abound on the banks of the rivers of 
Babylonia, and throughout the whole land of Shinar. These 
have become the best evidence in favour of the trustworthi- 
ness of Daniel, and against the ingenious and inconsistent 
guesses of neology. 

M. M. J. Baillie Fraser and W. Francis Ainsworth have 
treated the geological and geographical portion of the sub- 
ject with great success; the former in his work on “ Meso- 
potamia and Assyria,” and the latter in “Geological Re- 
searches.” See also the two papers on “The rivers and cities 


of Babylonia” by the latter writer, in the New Monthly 


Magazine, August and September, 1845. The Duke of 
Manchester has collected much information from ancient 
historians, but has not availed himself of the antiquarian 
researches, which describe and identify the mounds and 
ruins at present in existence. Vaua’s “Nineveh and Perse- 
polis” also affords much material illustrative of this portion 
of Daniel. 


1 Chap. i. 1, and following. 


ie. i 


Dissertation Twenty-first, 


DARIUS THE MEDE. 


Cuap. v. 31. 


Tur received views respecting this celebrated monarch 
have lately been impugned by the noble author of “ The 
Times of Daniel.” He gives five reasons for believing him 
to be Darius Hystaspes instead of the Cyaxares of Xenophon, 
the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus. This assertion will 
therefore require some notice in detail, and compel us to re- 
peat some statements with which the student of ancient 
history is familiar. 

The views of the author already alluded to are thus ex- 
pressed,—“ Three kings,” it is said, “of the name of Darius 
occur in Scripture; must we not presume that the first 
Darius there corresponds with Darius the first in profane 
history ? that the second in each equally agree; and that 
the third Darius, with whom the list terminates in Scripture, 
is the third Darius with whom the line of Persian kings 
eloses?” There are strong marks in corroboration of the 
Median of this verse being Hystaspes; some of these are 
as follows :—/ rst, each is said to have taken Babylon. 
Both levied taxes, so that the second verse of chap. vi. is 
said to be parallel to Herodotus, Book iii, and Strabo,’ 
Book xv. This levying taxes leads to a similar assertion 
respecting Ahasuerus in Esther, chap. x. 1, who reigned 
“from India even to Ethiopia.” (Esther i.1.) “ Now, Ahash- 
verosh, (meaning Ahasuerus,) who succeeded Darius the 


' § 89. Jahn points out what he considers a mistake of Strabo’s, Arch. 
Bib., chap. ii. § 233. 





DARIUS THE MEDE. 455 


Median, reigned over India,” and, according to Herodotus, 
Darius Hystaspes conquered India; hence this Mede was 
Darius Hystaspes. Pliny’s testimony is brought forward to 
shew that Susa was built by this Darius ;} Ahasuerus re- 
sided at Shushan, which is identical with Susa, hence the 
conclusion is the same. Other reasons are given, and other 
collateral assertions made. Authorities are quoted by which 
it is laid down that Ahasuerus was Xerxes, the history of 
Esther occurred during the captivity, the son of Ahasuerus 
was Darius Nothus, the third Darius was Codomanus. “To 
complete the evidence, I will contrast the identification 
which I propose with that which is now most generally ap- 
proved of.”? 


CANON OF PTOLEMY. SCRIPTURE AS I PROPOSE. 
y 
Darius the First. Darius the Median. 
Xerxes. Ahashverosh. 
Artaxerxes the First. Artaxerxes the First, (Coresch. ) 
Darius the Second. - Darius the Second. 
Artaxerxes the Second. Son of Ahashverosh. 
Ochus. Artaxerxes the Second. 
Arostes. : Y ' : 
Darius the Third. ; ‘ : ; 
Darius the Third, (fourth from 
Coresch, Dan. xi.) 





It is also suggested that chaps. |. and li. of Jeremiah apply 
to this Darius and not to Cyrus, as Dr. Keith asserts. Chap. 
li. verses 11 and 28, are said to apply to Zopyrus, and the 
language of the chapter is on the whole more suitable to 
the capture of Babylon by this Darius, according to Herodo- 
tus, Book iii., than to that by Cyrus. 

The commonly received view is stated shortly by Rosen- 
miiller,—that this Mede was the Cyaxares II. of Xeno- 
phon,’ the son of Astyages, the uncle and father-in-law of 
Cyrus. Alschylus, in his tragedy of the Persw,* introduces 
Darius the son of Hystaspes, recounting his origin from 
Darius the Mede. Josephus, in the tenth Book of his An- 
tiquities, says he was the son of Astyages ; and Theodoret, 
in his Commentary, identifies him with Cyaxares. Jerome 

1 Lib. vi. ch. xxvii. 2 P. 90. 


® Cyrop., lib. i. chaps. 4, 5, and lib, ili. chap. 3, § 20. 
* Vine 762. 





456 DISSERTATIONS. 


states that, in conjunction with his uncle Cyrus, he subverted 
the Chaldean empire. 

“If Xenophon’s account of Cyrus be in general admitted, 
says Wintle, “we cannot be at a loss to determine who was 
Darius the Mede; and if even the defeat of Astyages be 
received according to Herodotus, and it be placed in the 
tenth year of Cyrus’s reign over Persia Proper, yet there 
seems no necessity to conclude but that the kingdom of 
Media might still, with the:consent of Cyrus, be continued 
to Cyaxares, his mother’s brother, who might retain it till 
his death, after the conquest of Babylon, which Herodotus — 
attributes to Cyrus, after he had reduced the neighbouring 
powers.” He next proceeds to obviate one or two chrono- 
logical difficulties often considered as weighty objections to 
Xenophon’s account. “The name of Darius is omitted in 
the Canon, although he is allowed to have reigned more than 
one year, if he reigned at all. How shall we then reconcile 
his history with the Canon? and where or in what part must 
this reign be placed? The same answer will serve for both 
inquiries. The Canon certainly allots nine years to Cyrus 
over Babylon, of which space the two former years are usually 
allowed to coincide with the reign of Cyaxares or Darius the 
Mede by the advocates of Xenophon.” A MS. of Archbishop 
Secker is then quoted, in which he gives reasons why Berosus ~ 
might have overlooked this reign as short-lived and nominal. 
Prideaux and Usher, and the Ancient Universal History, 
are referred to for additional information.” With reference 
to the period before us, it is concluded, from the close of this 
chap. v., “that Darius the Mede did not begin his reign till 
after the capture of Babylon ; and this event I am inclined to 
place in the next year after the 17th of Nabonadius, in the 
210th year of the Chaldean era, or 588 years before Christ, 
which was the first of Cyrus’s nine years. Whether the defeat 
of Nabonadius and the taking of the city happened near the 
same time, I need not determine; but it seems clear from 
Daniel, (chap. v. 31,) as well as from Xenophon, that the 


a») 


a a ee 





DARIUS THE MEDE. 457 


king was slain on the same night that the city was taken ; 
and this, I apprehend, must have happened about the real 


_ year of the captivity 67, supposing the fourth of Jehoiakim 


to agree with the year 605 before Christ, according to 
Blair.” 

Here again the researches of Hengstenberg afford us valu 
able aid in discussing and reconciling the various statements 
of historians. The silence of Herodotus and Ctesias con- 
cerning a Median king of Babylon is noticed, and even con- 
cealment on the part of the Persians is shewn to be highly 


probable. 


Dissertation Twenty-second, 


CAPTURE OF BABYLON. 


CuapP. v. 31. 


Ir the period of the city’s capture could be accurately 
determined, many difficulties would be cleared up. CaLyin 
supposes it to have occurred in the last and eighth year of 
Belshazzar’s reign, but the majority of commentators place 
it in the seventeenth or eighteenth year. Wellet makes his 
third year his last, as also Bullinger and Gcolampadius, 
and this is done by following the short Hebrew Chronicle, 
‘which places it at the fifty-second year of the desolation 
of Jerusalem, and the seventieth of the kingdom of Babylon. 
The Oriental Chronicle, according to the author of “ The 
Times of Daniel,” assigns twenty years, and the Alexandrian 
Chronicle only four to this monarch; and such being the 
conflicting testimony of the most ancient and authentic 
documents, it naturally happens that modern writers select 
their own dates and their own systems according, first, to 
their own acquaintance with the subject ; and next, to their 
own judgment of the best selection of authorities which can 
be made. The only class of divines who appear disingenu- 
ous in such selections are those Germans who attempt to 
impugn the historical accuracy of this Prophet, by tacitly 
assuming that there is no real, and positive, and consistent 
knowledge to be obtained from profane writers, and then by 
asserting that a pseudo-Daniel: has displayed either ignor- 
ance, carelessness, or deception. They appeal to the histo- 
rians of Greece, as if they were contemporary with the- 
events which they record, and prefer throwing doubt upon 
the sacred narrative, to sifting the evidence upon which 
they believe the profane. 





| nae 


Dissertation Twenty-third. 


THE THREE PRESIDENTS. 


CHAP. vi. 2. 


Tuts division of the kingdom into 120 provinces is exactly 
in accordance with the assertion of Xenophon, who says that 
Cyrus appointed satraps over the conquered nations. Usher, 
in his Annals, p. 82, thinks that Darius followed the sug- 
gestion of Cyrus, who instituted this method of government. 
This verse is reconciled with the first of Esther, by remem- 
bering that after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, and 
of Thrace and India by Darius Hystaspes, seven provinces 
were added to the number. Junius, according to Willet, 
states, that after spending a year in settling the affairs of 
Babylon, he resigned all power to Darius. He approves of 
Calvin’s phrase, “ regnare in commune,” implying the joint 
reign of both kings. Josephus isin error in multiplying the 
number by three. The reason for the appointment of these 
presidents may be understood variously. The Latin interpre- 
ter, says Willet, translates pr, nezek, by molestiam, meaning 
“trouble,” Darius is represented as sixty-two years of age, and 
naturally fatigued by the wear and tear of an active life. Da- 
niel is elevated to an office equivalent to that of the Turkish 
grand Vizier, and the crime imputed to him seems similar 
to that of Rome—*“ crimen lesz majestatis,’ a kind of 
high treason. The word sy, gnillah, (verse 4,) is trans- 
lated by Wintle very appropriately “ action” in the forensic 
sense, equivalent to the Greek aitéa. These presidents and 
princes came in concourse and tumultuously before the king. 
The Vulgate “surripuerunt,” came by stealth, is disapproved 
by Wintle. ji 


460 DISSERTATIONS. 


Ver. 7. Tur DECREE by which Daniel was entrapped has 
occasioned the special cavil of Bertholdt and his adherents. 
They have treated it as an erroneous fiction, but have been 
appositely refuted by Hengstenberg. Oriental kings, he 
reminds us, were often treated as objects of exclusive wor- 
ship. Heeren has stated “that the kings of the Medes 
and Persians were regarded and worshipped as representa- 
tions and incarnations of Ormuzd.”* In the sacred books of 
the Zend religion, “ Iran, the Medo-Bactrian kingdom under 
Gustasp, is to him the image of the kingdom of Ormuad ; 
the king himself the image of Ormuzd; Turan, the northern 
nomad land, where Afrasiat rules, is the image of the king- 
dom of darkness, under the rule of Ahriman.” The king 
was the visible manifestation of Ormuzd, like him, com- 
manding, with unlimited power, the seven princes of the 
empire; next in rank to him were the representatives of 
the seven Amshaspands, who stood round the throne of Or- 
muzd. Similar testimony respecting the worship paid to 
the monarchs of the East, is given by Plutarch, Xenophon, 
Socrates, and Arrian. Curtius distinctly asserts, that the 
Persians worshipped their kings among their gods, so that 
the credibility of Daniel is fully vindicated by the records of 
profane antiquity. On the royal tombs at Persepolis, there 
are various sculptures representing the Persian kings as 
gods, and in De Sacy’s Persian inscriptions, they are termed 
the offspring of gods. 


Ver. 10. Danret’s CONDUCT AND PRAYER, as here recorded, 
have been questioned by some German critics, on the ground 
of practices and usages as yet unknown in Upper Asia, 
The custom of praying towards Jerusalem, it is said, did not 
arise among the Jews living abroad, till after the rebuilding 
of the temple. But it must not be forgotten that it prevailed 
among the Jews from early times. David prayed towards 
the sanctuary, and raised his hands towards it. The Dedi- 
cation prayer of Solomon contains a distinct injunction to 
the same effect. The very place, says Stolberg, where the 
temple had stood and was again to stand, was holy to 

? Heeren, Ideen. Augs., 3te, i. 1. p. 474, and Heng., p. 103, et seq. 


TITKE OPEN WINDOWS TOWARDS JERUSALEM. 461 


Daniel! The hours at which the Prophet offered up his 
prayer are said to belong to the fine-spun religiousness of 
the later Jews. But this assertion is made in forgetfulness 
of the ancient custom of all nations to have fixed and 
invariable periods for the worship of their deities. Wallet 
approves of Calvin's comments on this passage, and Qcolam- 
padius considers it a thanksgiving for the encouraging 
beginning, happy success, and prosperous end of our under- 
takings. Wallet also discusses the propriety of Daniel’s 
exposing himself thus openly to the malice of his enemies, 
after he knew of the king’s decree. He agrees on the whole 
with the practical comment of Calvin, and adduces it as an 
example of perseverance in the line of duty, in full con- 
fidence of the protecting power of God, and in defiance of 
all the malice of the most inveterate foes. 


Ver. 10. THE OPEN WINDOWS TOWARDS JERUSALEM.—Vari- 
ous writers have supposed this action of the Prophet’s to be 
the result of ostentation. Calvin has treated this point ably, 
and Wetstein, in his Notes on Acts i. 13, has explained the 
nature of “the upper chamber” in the Jewish houses, 
and their use either as oratories or for other solemn or 
festive purposes. Shaw, in his Travels, (p. 280,) alludes to 
their structure and use. The light was usually admitted 
into these upper rooms through large windows, and the Jews 
naturally turned towards Jerusalem in prayer, with earnest 
longing for speedy deliverance. The “three times a-day” 
has been used by Bellarmine? as an argument for the cano- 
nical hours of the Romish Church, and Pontus goes further 
to insist on seven, according to Psalm cxix. But all these 
arguments which enforce Christian duties by Jewish prac- 
tices are erroneous. Calvin’s principle is judiciously stated, 
but it is founded on enlightened and Christian common 
sense, and not in a blind adherence to Jewish traditions. 
Similar principles should guide us as to praying towards the 
east. Wcolampadius refers to the supposed Apostolic 


1 Religionsg., iv. p. 48, ap. Heng., p. 116; also Vitringa de Syn., p. 179. 
Eisenmenger, i. p. 584, eod. auct. 
2 Lib. i. De bon. oper. tn partic., c. xii. 


462 DISSERTATIONS. 


tradition of worshipping towards the east, but he reprobates 
it as superstitious. Vos patriam nostram in colis habemus, 
et a Deo originem. Irenzus’ ascribes this superstition as a 
heresy to the Ebionites. Daniel’s open profession of his 
faith in God has been censured as too bold and ill judged 
for our imitation, but it has also been ably vindicated as 
an example of perseverance in religious duty when our 
conscience justifies us in maintaining God’s truth before 
men. Willet approves of Calvin’s distinction “ of Confes- 
sion, that it is of two sorts, cwm palam testamur, quod est 
im animo, et ne aliquod perverse simulationis signum 
demus.” 


While this sheet is passing through the press, a very illus- 
trative work, confirming the historical accuracy of Daniel, 
has been published, entitled “ Ninrven anp ITs PALAcgs: 
the Discoveries of Botta and Layard applied to the elucida- 
tion of Holy Writ; by Joszpu Bonomt, F.R.S.L.” It con- 
tains the latest and best interpretations of the cuneiform 
inscriptions, and is worthy of attentive perusal. 


1 Adv. Heeres., lib. i. cap. xxvi. 





Dissertation Twenty-fourth. 


THE KING’S DECEASE. 


CuapP. vi. 28. 


CouLp we ascertain accurately when death closed “the 
reign of Darius,” most of the controversies concerning the 
history of 4hese times and personages would be set at rest. 
We have first to determine who Darius was? and secondly, 
to discover whether a portion of his reign is contemporaneous 
with that of Cyrus? With respect to the first point, it ought 
to be fully understood that there is no actual correspondence 
between this monarch and any well-attested ruler mentioned 
in profane history. The balance of probabilities is in favour 
of his being Cyaxares, but we have already stated how 
Xenophon, Ctesias, and Herodotus differ on the point; and 
we are careful to repeat this, because the futility of the 
Neologian arguments might otherwise entrap the unwary. 
For instance, Dr. Wells has the following Note :—‘It is to be 
observed that in Ptolemy’s Canon the two years of Darius 
the Mede’s reign are reckoned to Cyrus, who accordingly has 
therein nine years assigned for his reign; whereas Xeno- 
phon assigns but seven years to it, reckoning the first year the 
same as Ezra doth, viz., from the death of Darius and Cam- 
byses.” Wuntle again states, “there is no doubt but Darius 
the Mede, whoever he was, reigned, according to Daniel, 
from the capture of Babylon till this same first year of Cyrus, 
or till the commencement of the reign allotted by Scripture 
_to Cyrus the Persian.” (Preface, p. xxix., where reference 
is made toa Memoir by M. Freret, containing many just 
and accurate dates assigned to the life and transactions of 
Cyrus.) The reader cannot fail to perceive that this sen- 


464 DISSERTATIONS. 


tence leaves the two important questions in as much doubt 
as ever. Dr. Eanrz, of the American Presbyterian Church, 
states, too, positively, “The kingdom of Babylon was given 
by Cyrus to Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares IL, as a reward 
for his services; and after his death, at the end of two years, 
this kingdom returned to Cyrus, and hence Cyrus is spoken 
of as if he were the successor of Darius at Babylon. Dan. 
vi. 28.”—(Art., Daniel, in his Bibl. Cycl.) Wallet informs 
us that Tertullian and Cyril of Jerusalem took Darius for 
Darius Hystaspes, (p. 175;) and the noble Duke, to whom 
we have already referred, agrees in this opinion, and argues 
very elaborately in its favour. 

The German Neologians have not been slow to construct 
a charge of inaccuracy against Daniel, in consequence of 
these historic difficulties. Bertholdt, Bleek, and De Wette, 
treat it as an error to call Cyaxares II. by the name of 
Darius, and suppose it a confusion with the son of Hys- 
taspes. But before the commentator on Scripture ventures 
to use the phrase, “ historic inaccuracy,” he must first clearly _ 
ascertain what historic accuracy really is. An unlearned 
reader might suppose from their reasonings that all the pro- 
fane historians agreed in their accounts, and that the only 
element of confusion was that introduced by the narrative 
of Scripture. But the truth is far otherwise. No two 
authors agree in their statements throughout. Ancient his- 
tory is, in fact, simply an ideal deduction from a variety of 
conflicting traditions. Of Cyaxares II., for instance, neither 
Herodotus nor Justin say anything. Neither of them men- 
tion any son of Astyages. Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and 
Polyznus, agree with them in asserting that the Median 
empire closed with Astyages, and the Persian began at once 
with Cyrus; and yet there is evidence to shew that Darius 
the Mede was a reaj person. “Still farther,” says Heng- 
stenberg, “the author agrees in another special fact with 
profane history. Xenophon relates’ that soon after the 
taking of Babylon, the conquered lands were divided into 
provinces, and governors set over them. All this is stated 


1 Cyropeedia, lib, viii., chap. vi, &c.; Berth., ii. p. 848, ff.; Rosen. 
Alterthumsk, i. 1, p. 369; Jahn. Arch., ii. 1, p. 244. 





pre 


THE KINGS DREAM. 465 


in our book, too.” Are we, indeed, to infer, from a mere 
difference of names, that the author is chargeable with con- 
founding them? The Cambyses of profane writers is called 
in the book of Ezra, Achaschverosh (Ahasuerus). Pseudo- 
smerdis bears in profane writers two different names—in 


Ctesias, Spendates; in Justin, Oropastes; and in Ezra he 


appears under a third name, Artachshasta (Artaxerxes). 
“Now, why is this appearance in all other cases unani- 
mously explained on the ground that the names of kings 
were not nomina propria, but surnames, whilst, on the con- 
trary, in this single instance, this explanation is not once 
proposed as possible? And yet in this very case this expla- 
nation is quite natural, since it is generally allowed that the 
name Darius in particular is an appellation. That it was a 
mere title appears from this, that several different kings 
bear it.” Herbelot says the name Dara is Persian, and ap- 
pellative, signifying “sovereign.”? 

When we descend to the historians of the Christian era, 
we find in the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius a confirma- 
tion of the narrative under review. In a short appendix to 
a fragment of Abydenus, found also in the Preparatio 
Evangelica, Darius is distinctly mentioned as king; so that 
if it be impossible to be certain as to the identity of this 
king with Cyaxares, yet it must be remembered that pro- 
fane history, independently of Scripture, is at variance with 
itself, and that no new element of discord is introduced by 
our Prophet. Let the objector first settle what the events 
connected with the overthrow of Babylon from uninspired 
authorities really were, and we shall then be prepared to 
shew that the writer of this book was free from inaccuracies, 
and that all the obscurity hovering over the subject arises 
from our very imperfect knowledge of the occurrences of this 
period. And the more fully the assertions of the Neologists 
are investigated, the more baseless will their charges against 
this Prophet of Jchovah appear. 

1 See Hengsienberg’s Authorities on p. 41, where Gesenius and Winer 


are quoted as well as Heeren Ideen, i. 1, p. 163; and Volney Rech. Now, 
t.i. p. 144. dit. Paris, 1814. 


VOL, I. 2G 


a 


466 DISSERTATIONS. 


THE PROLONGATION OF DANIEL’S LIFE. 


Cua P. vi 28. 


Tue prolongation of our Prophet's life till the era specified 
in this verse, is worthy of our notice, that we may, if pos- 
sible, accurately ascertain his age at leading periods of his 
history. We cannot ascertain precisely the year of his 
entrance into public life. He was born shortly before King 
Josiah’s death, probably about 620 3B.c.; and thus he had 
many opportunities of cultivating that early piety for which 
he was conspicuous. He was about fourteen years old when 
taken captive to Babylon. Three years afterwards, the king 
of Israel threw off the Babylonian yoke, and thus he and his 
companions became hostages and forerunners of the capture 
of the whole nation. From Jahn’s Biblical Antiquities, we 
learn how skilled he was in various sciences after three 
years training, (pp. 99, 100;) and the high opinion which © 
was entertained of his integrity, wisdom, and piety, is con- 
firmed by the remarkable honour paid to him by the Pro- 
phet Ezekiel. He is connected, whale alive, with Noah and 
Job. (See Ezek. xiv. 14, and Calvin’s comment on the pas- 
sage in our Edition, vol. i. p. 68.) 

The dream and its interpretation in chap. 1. occurred 
during Daniel’s youth, and resulted in his promotion with 
his three friends to the highest offices of the kingdom. We 
now lose sight of him for thirty years, and it is impossible to 
determine whether he sat at the king’s gate during the 
whole of this period. The erection of the image on the 
plains of Dura, and the subsequent punishment of his three 
companions, seem inconsistent with his residence at that 
time at Babylon as an adviser of his sovereign. The three 
“children,” as they are termed in chap. i. 17, were now 
about fifty years of age; and it has become necessary to 
remark this, because some have spoken of them as still 
children when thus miraculously delivered from destruction. 


4 


THE PROLONGATION OF DANIEL’S LIFE. 467 


We too often take for granted impressions of this kind, 
which we have imperceptibly imbibed in our earliest days ; 
and besides this, the works of the great masters in painting 
have fostered the error. These splendid productions of Euro- 
pean art are often glaringly untrue, yet while based upon 
fabulous anachronisms, they too often adhere to the imagina- 
tion, and influence our thoughts in days of more mature 
advancement. At the period of the dream in chap. iv. 
Daniel was about fifty years of age; and thus we have 
another gap of about fifteen years. Belshazzar had now 
ascended his grandfather’s throne. The mystic characters 
on the wall soon reveal a fearful reality. Darius the Mede 
still esteems the upright counsellor, and he had become a 
venerable “ancient of days” before he is thrust into the 
lion’s den” During the first year of King Darius, he learned, 
from the Book of Jeremiah, the approaching period of Judah’s 


deliverance. During the third year of Cyrus, he is favoured 


with a vision on the banks of the Tigris. (Chap. x. 1-4.) 
We cannot ascertain how long he lived after this period, 
but he was at least eighty years of age when he died. Va- 
rious assertions and traditions exist among the Jews respect- 
ing both the time and place of his decease, and these have 
passed current, through the unsuspecting simplicity of some 
of our older expounders, who record as certain the hazard- 
ous statements of the authorities on which they rely. Dr. 
Wells, after comparing various dates, concludes, “that Da- 
niel was about eighty-nine or ninety years old in the third 
year of Cyrus;” he pays no regard to the conjectures of 
some, who make him to have lived one hundred and thirty- 
eight, or one hundred and fifty years, and adds the possibility 
of his reaching one hundred years. 

Our object in view in impressing this chronology is to 
disabuse the public mind of the Romish ideas connected 
with what they term, “The song of the three children.” 
Their usual method of treating these three martyrs for truth 
and holiness is utterly erroneous, and like every other 
error of theirs, injurious and pernicious in proportion as it 
deviates from the WRITTEN AND INFALLIBLE WORD OF THE 
LIVING Gop. . 


Concluding Remarks. 


Havine brought dur Dissrrtations on the Histortan 
portion of this sacred book to a close, we have still another 
duty to discharge in editing these Commentaries. We have 
already defended our Reformer from the charges of the 
German Neologist, and from the censures of the fanciful ex- 
pounders of prophecy; we have now merely to offer a few 
comments on the Practicat InreRENcEs which CALyIN so 
ably draws from the inspired narrative. While perusing this 
volume, the reader must often have felt the difference be- 
tween the state of the world in the days of Nebuchadnezzar 
and his own. Those were emphatically days of visions, and 
marvels, and visibly divine interpositions. We, on the con- 
trary, pass on along the even tenor of the walk of life, with- 
out expecting to behold a hand-writing on the wall, or to 
experience the all-devouring heat of a “ burning fiery fur- 
nace.” We see no vision in the night season foretelling the 
wonders of an unknown future, and expect neither magician 
nor prophet to expound with the authority of heaven the 
images of our sleeping hours. Yet, with our Reformer, we 
see the world agitated in all quarters with unexpected re- 
volutions. Oppression, and intrigue, and tyranny, prevail 
among the rulers of Europe and of Christendom, and there 
seems no human means adequate to the task of stemming the 
tide of recklessness and infidelity as it overflows the nations. 
If these comments on scriptural prophecy are to be useful 
in our day and generation, they need some connecting links 
of interpretation which may apply the general principles 
enunciated to the practical problem to be worked out. 


CONCLUDING REMARKS. 469 


Otherwise, we either make no intelligent use of such a his- 
tory as this volume contains, or else we apply it wrong. The 
latter error is a very common one; and as many are liable 
to its commission, we trust these CONCLUDING REMARKS will 
be found suitable and instructive. It may appear to many 
readers that CaLvin in his Practica ExHortations over- 
_ looks this difference between a miraculous dispensation and 
the ordinary condition of God’s people under the New Cove- 
nant. If he be somewhat open to this charge, it is readily 
accounted for by the times in which he lived. Catviy, like 
Daniel, was an exile from his fatherland. The house of 
Valois and their tyrant kings were to him the exact coun- 
terparts of the Babylonian monarchs. They were absolute 
sovereigns, and most ferocious persecutors of the people of 
the Lord.* The Medici, tlie Guises, and the Lorraines of his 
day were to him the very antitypes of the nobles who 
fawned upon Nebuchadnezzar, and of the presidents who 
inveigled Darius. In his Drpicatory Episttz prefixed to 
this volume, the pious in France are represented as in a 
‘position exactly similar to that of the Jews during their 
captivity. The parallel being in each case so striking and 
so different to what we see and experience in these days, we 
need not be surprised at CaLvin’s expectation of special in- 
terpositions, and at our own backwardness to appreciate the 
full suitability of his comments. Now there is clearly a 
sense In which such “special deliverances” are real, and a 
sense in which they are not. And as this is a point of some 
importance involving the idea of the Almighty which our 
. Reformer has presented to us in the preceding pages, we 
shall comment at some length on a few passages of im- 
portance. 

For instance, on chap. i. 21, p. 144 and following, we 
have a full. reply to unbelieving objections to God's provi- 
dential government of the world. The profane are said to 
consider all things acted upon by a “blind impulse,’ and 
‘others affirm the human race to be a kind of sport to God, 
since men are tossed about like balls.” The chief cavils of 
the Reformation period were those which proceeded from 
complete scepticism. Philosophers having thrown off the 


a 


470 CONOLUDING REMARKS. 


superstitions of Popery naturally doubted and disputed all 
things. The reasoners of Catvin’s days were something like 
those intelligent Hindoos who are now worshippers of nei- 
ther Brahma nor Christ. They are in a transition state, and 
having unlearned so much, they scarcely know where to lay 
the foundation-stone of trustworthy belief. Throughout 
these Lectures, our author is constantly answering the argu- 
ments of those contemporaries who felt the hollowness of 
Rome, and had not yet tried the firmness of Geneva. Still 
to us his replies may not be convincing. This remark ap- 
plies to the following passage: “If the sun always rose and 
set at the same period, or at least certain symmetrical 
changes took place yearly, without any casual change; if 
the days of winter were not short, and those of summer not 
long, we might then discover the same order of nature, and 
in this way God would be rejected from his dominion.” Here 
we must remember that in Calvin’s days most men were 
ignorant of those general laws and all-pervading principles 
by which the Author of nature governs and sustains the uni- 
verse. In his day, there was scarcely any choice between 
the system which represented the Almighty removed in a 
kind of Epicurean repose far away from the works: of his 
hand, and a system which supposed him to interfere arbi- 
trarily and suddenly in favour of one party, and to the dis- 
comfiture of another. Since this period, the researches of © 
modern science have discovered for us the numerous, the 
simple, and seemingly self-acting principles, according to 
which the days of winter are short, and those of summer 
long. We can contemplate humbly “the same order of — 
nature” from year to year with undeviating regularity, and 
yet never be tempted “to reject God from his dominion.” 
Yea, the marvel is this, the more we are trained to view 
the comprehensive theories of physical astronomy, and che- 
mistry, and magnetism, the more are we led to adore and to 
magnify the Great and the All-powerful Original. Sueh 
studies do not lead us to “ erect nature into a deity,” and to 
reject the Creator from his own dominion. They rather lead 
us to detect the fallacy in the expression “nature does this 
or that ;” they prove to us that there is no such existence 


CONCLUDING REMARKS. 471 


as “nature,” but that the word is but an expression for a 
complex and comprehensive idea of external objects, in the 
minds of men. The Almighty is seen by the true naturalist 
in all his works, not as interposing visibly and surprisingly 
at one time, and leaving all things to themselves at another ; 
but rather as impressing on every created particle of matter 
its own condition of obedience to certain laws which we call 
either mechanical or chemical, vital or organic. And it 
is the merciful arrangement of providence that a persevering 
study of God’s works prepares the mind for an intelligent 
perusal of his word. The habit of looking for such general 
principles as gravitation, attraction, organization, and de- 
velopment, of applying these theories to practice by the pro- 
cess of mathematical reasoning, or anatomical dexterity, and 
of arriving at results indisputably true,—this habit of mind 
is an excellent preparative for the equally discursive pursuit 
of revealed theology. Thus we readily detect the fallacy of 
ascribing the events of life to either fortune, or chance, or 
nature. Catvin had to contend with them as if they were 
realities ; we may profit by Locke’s chapter on complex ideas, 
and treat them as expressions comprehending many separate 
existences, so related to each other that we form “a. collec- 
tive idea” of the whole. 

By continuing this process of thought we are enabled to 
explain, although not to defend certain. phrases of CaLvin’s 
respecting the prerogatives of God. On chap. v. 11, men 
are said to “ mingle God and angels in complete confusion,” 
(p. 326,) and on ver. 21, God is said to be “ excluded from 
the government of the world,’ (p. 338.) The moment our 
attention is turned to the point, we perceive that the ideas 
only of God and angels can be mingled, and in imagination 
only can men exclude the Almighty from his sway over the 
wills of mankind. Such phrases, we must remember, are 
the remnants of that realism which lingered in the minds 
of many of the Reformers, and still clings to the writings of 
some of their successors. Such expressions as we meet with 
on chap. vi. 10, “ Draw down God from heaven,” (p. 359,) 
and on ver. 16, “ to deprive the Almighty of his sway,” are 
better avoided. The same thought may be expressed in 


472 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 


language more adapted to our enlarged views of the glory 
of our Creator. The Hebrew Prophets, it has been said, 
“ dramatized the particulars of their mission,” and their 
symbolical portraits of the Almighty were afterwards 
received as exact and literal descriptions of his character. 
The Jewish people, even in the time of Daniel, were but in 
the infancy of moral and intellectual growth ; and to them 
the well-known proverb most aptly applies, “Omne ignotum 
pro magnifico.” Everything marvellous was attributed at 
once to the direct agency of a deity, disturbing rather than 
controlling the occurrences of life. Thus the world, and its 
surprising tumults, successes, struggles, and reverses, ap- 
peared but a scene of fortuitous and capricious chance. 
But the more we advance from infancy to manhood, the 
more we gain power to methodize these moral phenomena 
under some fixed and intelligible arrangement. 

It is possible to present from the word of God another 
reply- to the Epicurean suppositions of Catvin’s day, on 
principles in advance of those which he adopts. While he 
represents kings as actually contending with the Almighty, 
and really attempting to hurl him from his throne in heayen, 
we must remember that such language can only be sugges- 
tive. The foundation of all true reverence for Deity is the | 
idea of an infinite and invisible Being, of whose wisdom and 
might the material universe is the product, and of whose 
moral nature the conscience of man is the image. When 
asked for rigid proof of this assertion, we are constrained to 
refer it to that faith which is peculiarly his gift. The double 
postulate of that essential existence which is spiritual, and 
of something in ourselves, which is his image, is the neces- 
sary rock upon which we must be placed before we can under- 
stand our origin and ourdestiny—our position in the universe 
—our moral relation to that system of providence into which 
we find ourselves born. And this series of providential 
occurrences is In many respects exactly the opposite to that 
described in these six chapters of Daniel. Miraculous and 
supernatural agency is here variously employed to counter- 
act what are known to us as the ordinary laws of nature. 
The simple will of the Almighty annihilates the effect of 





CONCLUDING REMARKS. A473 


fire in the furnace, and the ferocity of lions in their den. 
A sweeping act of his power converts one despot into the 
appearance of a beast of prey, and affrights another by the 
ominous appearance of a hand writing vengeance on a wall. 
We cannot expect such special revelations, judgments, or 
deliverances. Our study of the character of Deity is con- 
tained in the revealed record of such wonders, and in the 
present and past history of man and of the physical world. 
Moral and natural philosophy, under the guidance of revealed 
religion, is for us the exponent of the idea of Deity. The 
omnipresence of mind in outward nature is now all but 
visible to every student. Vast as the universe is, we know 
it to be pervaded by a moral purpose, and this presents that 
View of Deity which provides for adoration, and love, and 
reverence, without limit, and satisfies the longings for wor- 
ship which are implanted deeply in the human soul. Thus 
we clothe the idea of an infinite spirit with the attributes of 
a human conscience; we are not satisfied with “ a dynamic 
centre of the universe,” we desire to feel our souls overflow 
with that mingled wonder and love which constitutes the high- 
est and noblest worship of him who is coop. The history of 
nations and of families impresses upon us the idea of a per- 
sonal providential Divinity, having fellow-feeling with the 
wants and distresses, the joys and the sorrows of mankind. 
Now, we also believe that there are general, harmonious, 
ever-acting laws of his providential government as well as of 
his physical. And the study of ordinary sciences disciplines 
the mind, and qualifies it to perceive, and arrange, and reason 
upon analogous laws in the moral and religious government 
of our immortal spirits. A firm persuasion that there is no 
disorder or disturbance in God’s moral sway—that he is not 
influenced by caprice, or swayed by favouritism, or turned 
aside by passionate entreaty, is necessary as the key-stone 
to the arch of Christian wisdom. Those very confusions 
of which our Reformer writes so vigorously in his Drpica- 
tory Epistie, ascribing them to the “ red and sanguinary 
cohorts and horned beasts,” (p. 1xix.,) were all in accordance 
with those uniformities of action which we now designate 
general laws. So far from considering it possible for God to 


47 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS, 


‘‘ sit at ease in heaven and desert and betray his own cause,” 
our firm reliance on the permanence of those principles which 
underlie and encompass all others, is thereby tested and 
increased. The phenomena of political government, of reli- 
gious persecution, and of social outbursts of fury and 
fanaticism, obey laws as orderly and as undeviating as those 
which regulate the motion of a planet or the passage of 
electricity along the wire. Through and by means of this 
“setting up and pulling down of kings,” the Almighty speaks 
a language addressed alike to our reason, our conscience, 
and our faith. But the great guarantee of our spiritual 
improvement is the fundamental belief that there is harmony, 
and classification, and inflexible regularity throughout the 
whole moral government of God. The very possibility of 
accident, or favouritism, or isolated marvel, must be banished 
from our thoughts. We know, by long course of proof and 
experience, that they do not exist in the physical world, and 
we cannot allow them a single foot-print within the domain 
of our moral and spiritual nature. Nothing here can 
be an anomaly, nothing an exception. In the uncultivated 
mind, there is an avidity for the marvellous, and a morbid 
eagerness for a cheap and easy solution of the solemn mys- 
teries concerning God and the soul; but our educated 
religious life is like “a star hovering on the horizon’s verge 
between night and morning.’ Thus, by faith we stand at 
the parting of the two roads, imagined by Plato’s great Par- 
menides, between the seeming and the true. As this star 
shines brighter over our path, mere external ceremonies and 
notional expressions become more and more objects of dis- 
trust; and the ideas of God and of the soul, of sin and 
of conscience, of heaven and of glory, become more and more 
vivid and real to us. And if any are afraid that the pur- 
suit of either scientific, or moral, or religious truth, accord- 
ing to the principles here laid down, will injure true religion 
or saving faith, the single antidote to this fear is found 
in the exhortation, “ Have faith in God.” (Mark xi, 22.) 
Throughout these Lectures our Reformer ever clings to this 
scriptural principle, and ever illustrates his subject ably, 
practically, and improvingly; while he all along labours 


CONCLUDING REMARKS. 475 


under the difficult task of rendering a narrative interspersed 
with miracle available for the improvement of modern 
Christians who live under a totally different dispensation. 
As another illustration of this difficulty, we may turn to 
chap. vi. 25-27, p. 392, where our commentator asserts of 
the profane, that they so unite minor deities with the true 
that “he lies hid in a crowd, although he enjoys a slight 
pre-eminence.” Such simple and racy language is easily 
intelligible, but scarcely dignified enough. It justifies the 
assertion that in the infancy of great truths, language is an 
index of our ignorance rather than of our knowledge. Truly 
enough all men “ wander confusedly” when they attempt to 
render palpable to others their contemplations of a Deity. 
This idea is the most vague and comprehensive of all—a 
universal solvent of all problems in the early stage of our 
religious existence. The Egyptians and the Greeks saw a 
god everywhere—in hill, in brook, in bird and beast. They 
manifested no lack of faith in the existence of beings far 
superior to themselves ; and when the priest set up the ugly 
idol in its gorgeous temple, he never imagined he was creat- 
ing a god for either himself or the people. He only at- 
tempted, after his fashion, to give fixity and embodiment to 
the ideas of Deity which were floating about indefinitely in 
the minds of the multitude. But the interval was wide in- 
deed between these metaphorical symbols and the simple 
abstract idea of one self-acting Being ruling the conscience 
and swaying the future destinies of all men. When the tree 
of knowledge was separated from the tree of life,a dark and 
forlorn interval succeeded, during which mankind underwent 
long struggles of disquietude in “feeling after” the Almighty 
One. And we have been permitted to find him.. To believe 
in his permanent presence and providence, to cling to him 
with the trust of a child to a parent, to follow after him, with 
no voice but his word acting on conscience and cheering 
while it guides, to trust him even amid the darkest prospects, 
—this it is to have faith in God. And this trust is not the 
mere result of reason, or understanding, or sentiment, or 
speculation. It is woven into our deepest instincts and our 
noblest aspirations. It unites them all. It is completed in 


« 
34 
x 


476 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 


love. What the profane call Nature, all who sympathize in 
Darius’s proclamation concerning Daniel’s God, feel to be a 
legislation of love. A parent whose government is unerring 
and complete is ever setting before us the unalterable Law 
as an exhibition of unchanging love. The very severity and 
uncompromising character of this idea of Deity proves the 
crowning beneficence of his kingship over the powers of this 
world. Inflexible justice and unerring certainty become the 
highest proofs of all-pervading benevolence. Herein lies the 
perfection of constancy and truth. The conscience is thus 
felt to be the vicegerent of this Divinity within. Forms of 
thought and expression must change, and since CaLyin’s 
time, in the course of three centuries, they have passed 
through many changes ; and man’s religious condition must 
always be modified by the extension of his knowledge, his 
experience, and his educated capacities. Many habitual 
modes of thought current in the days of Gcolampadius and 
Willet have been set aside; the disturbance of feeling which 
this occasioned has subsided, and our comprehension of God’s 
moral sway over the affairs of men has been enlarged and 
purified by the change. His hand-writing is now legible to 
us on ten thousand walls where of old it was a blank. The 
wonder which has been removed from special facts has been 
transferred to general laws ; and if “the dream and its in- 
terpretation” are not now sent as proofs of his providence, 
there has sprung up instead equally striking indications me 
it in every dewdrop and in every flower. 


The PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT which is so appositely made 
of every occurrence throughout this historical portion of the 
LxctuRES, constitutes a large share of their value. They 
always plead fervently for justice ; always and everywhere 
they place justice first. They shew us that the absolute will 
of the most unbending tyranny must ultimately yield to the 
Divine omnipotence of justice, and that all defences which 
human power may raise against human rights are utterly 
vain. He who would be god-like must first be just, and 
whatever else may be avoided, there is no escape from an 
avenging judge and a self-torturing conscience. These Lxc- 


CONCLUDING REMARKS. 477 


TURES encourage us to harbour no distrust that permanent 
evil will arise to us from doing manfully our duty ; they 
banish all fear that religion should suffer from the withdraw- 
ing of any supports which are proved to be unsound. They 
stir us up to do the work assigned to us while yet it is day 
with affectionate fidelity and all earnestness of zeal, and are 
specially instructive in an age like ours, more remarkable 
for the variety of its creeds than the intensity of its faith. 
Certainly the ancient spirit of righteousness, which flourished 
so vigorously under the crushing despotism of the House of 
Valois, is not strong within us. That spirit may be char- 
acterized as moral courage and religious earnestness com- 
bined with love to Christ and readiness to peril life for his 
name. And while it has almost died out in these days, the 
practical exhortations of these LzcturEs may, by God’s 
blessing, aid in its revival. 

Connected with the practical exposition of our Prophet, 
we find a passage in chap. v. which demands our notice. In 
commenting on ver. 5, p. 315, and explaining that the hand 
which wrote upon the wall was not real, but only a figure, 
it is said, “ Scripture often uses this form of speech, and 
especially when treating external symbols.” ‘“ Est ergo hac 
etiam sacramentalis loquutio, ut ita loquar.’ It would sur- 
prise us to find the word “sacramental” introduced here, if 
we were unacquainted with the modes of thought and ex- 
pression in which Catvin was brought up. But when we 
remember the very strong hold which the phraseology of the 
schoolmen had upon the minds of all who were early imbued 
with it, we enter at once into the fulness of its meaning. 
We have already stated in our Dissertations on Ezexret, 
that the theology of Europe was, during the middle ages, 
entirely moulded according to the teaching of either the 
Realists or the Nominalists. It was so then, and it is so 
now. ‘These two classes of mental cultivation still govern 
the theological studies of mankind, and will probably do so 
till the end of our Christian dispensation. The theology of 
Rome is the growth of the scholastic philosophy built up by 
the Realists ; the teaching of the Reformers springs entirely 
from that of the Nominalists. All leanings to Rome have 


478 '  GONCLUDING REMARKS, 


in them the essence of Realism, made manifest by some 


Romanizing tendencies ; and all Ultra-Protestantism verges — 


towards a series of negatives based upon Nominalism. We 
have already alluded to the first nominalist, to whom Luther 
and Melancthon own their deep obligations. ‘ The real ori- 
ginator of the Protestant principle,” says the author of The 
Vindication of Protestant Principles, “the first man who truly 
emancipated himself from the trammels of Popish ecelesio- 
latry, the first, in fact, who referred everything to Seripture, 
and asserted the right of private judgment in its interpreta- 
tion, was our own countryman, William of Ockham, in Sur- 
rey.” He died at Munich in the year 1347, just 170 years 
before Luther fastened his ninety-five propositions to the 
church doors at Wittemberg. Leopold Ranke also asserts 
that the celebrated nominalist, Gabriel Biel, was chiefly an 
epitomizer of this favourite writer of Melancthon’s. (See 
Vindic. Prot. Prin., p. 5, and note on p. 121.) The Zurich 


Letters (Ep. xxiii, Park. Soc.) inform us of the language of, 


Bishop Jewel when writing to Peter Martyr, 5th November 
1559,—“ We have deserted the ranks of Scotus and Aquinas 
for those of the Occamists and Nominalists,” (p. 53.) 1842. 
This sentence condenses under a short formula the very 
essence of the controversies which now agitate Christendom 
at large. We cannot dwell here on the proofs of this im- 
_ portant statement ; we can only remind the reader of these 
Leorvres that he will find some lingering traces of the real- 
ism which once pervaded the theology of Europe, and in 
which Catvrn was brought up. We all know how exceedingly 
difficult it is utterly to efface the earliest impressions made 
upon an earnest and deeply speculative mind. Whenever, 
for instance, some of the expressions with respect to the 
Almighty seem alien to our present modes of thinking, we 
are now able to trace them to their source, and to set them 
aside as remnants of a system which our Reformer ener- 
getically and vigorously opposed. He is always leading us 
to cultivate the idea of a moral mind pervading all that we 
know and read of now, and can know hereafter. ‘This ger- 
minant truth shines like light within our souls; the images 
and visions, the trials and triumphs of Daniel and his com- 


el a ee ee 


LULU 


CONCLUDING REMARKS 4.79 


panions, are no longer insulated atoms in chaos—a mighty 
maze, and all without a plan—but portions of one organic 
whole, in which we are personally bound up for both time 
and eternity. And the more we surrender ourselves to this 
trust in our Parent Spirit, the more shall we find our igno- 
rance of the plans of Providence removed, and the cloud of 
mystery hanging over the prevalence of evil brightened and 
dispersed. Thus the discovery of the laws by which the 
universe is governed by no means excludes the Supreme 
Cause from our contemplation; on the contrary, he be- 
comes more manifest to us by his pervading and perpetual 
presence. 

Throughout these Lecrurus we are ever taught that we 
can see God only by being pure in heart. The preparation for 
spiritual insight into holy mysteries is purity of conscience 
and singleness of eye. But even these able comments do 
not clear up everything. Our lot on earth must be to walk 
more by faith than by sight. This is the chief exercise of 
the soul, which is essential to its vitality and growth. We 
must have at times our mountains of vision as well as our 
valleys of the shadow of death. Never let us doubt the 
essential permanence of justice, and righteousness, and 
truthfulness. By this we shall be borne up through regions 
of cloud into realms of light. Thus will our spirituality be 
strengthened and refined: thus we shall be permitted to 
obtain larger perceptions of God’s character and maturer 
judgments of his purposes. 


END OF VOLUME I. 











EDINBURGH: T. CONSTABLE, PRINTER TO HER MAJESTY, 
; ~ ‘ a * ~ 


_ N a — 





























rg a Hee ol 


, 





—— VS ee 


ation 
. ows 













nity + Ne gin 
ve Ate rag 
re kis 7% me Ns 








‘ 5 - : . we ae! Cs Ky } “at ‘ i 











eee py Er en ara =e 7 
io a a i <2 be a ra a e ‘ ; i 
so) vs, A, , ; ha ie ae Lee. g 
' .# ‘ : ee? ¥ ye’ aa ie . . cr 
i : . i - Ad ? ie * ihe - y _ ; : . 
- ea ; 42 Ss - ’ - ; ‘ ; ck : 
b ©. O4 ) 4 faa" : ce 
is, eggnog om i> 
in ; » ; a 
~ 4 ’ 

- e 7 ; 

. -* A * “ F 

. Sk a alee oT ae ee 3 tS 

4 € = - ei An ae ea “ee 
- ? ~ ba a bi 7 , ; : = A 
‘ ? : 4 : 1 = . - * 
5 eae has Swit ore ) 
alas 4 
) es » : » 9° ay 
- . t ‘ 
= : ; ) 
' + J “ r 4 
a * : 
*, Pod . ; j 









F : vd LY 
" a: ' | 
i ; . | 
| ' , : P in. ae 
: P f ’ gs “" 
| : ee ’ ‘ 
- 7 : i ; 
7 at { ? 
Pal “= G : , : 
ay 7 A : ge ‘- 
ay 5 ; 
i 
. dl lll CU ee 


be we EE Lis 










8 1983 


PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE 
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET 





UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY 











ppene Mery tibieebe te STi 
Bigs Fhe ener) ny 


Liu 


VOom vicars x 
eeaiitt ¥y at . 
rf 


i 
fi ae i ah ue ihelttyte 
i i nau 
Hate iy ae hea vt Pre ne oe eh 
vee new rs {" ‘ tity fs’ 
phe . 

















vi or ure! 
antes nh edits ret 





jhetebe tte teat 
by hay SUH iib keg 
ba fhe 
fret Hi rte bp aye 
Pyne 


pues sath at 


oer 
rege 
Lape 


itt 
axt $e hs 
. 4tit Hyetest 


eats =a orate 


— 


ry Di . 
vibe ait 


we 
—= 








et ee 











Mista 
ste 


ioe 


a 
the 


aahk 


Ere er 
Pe bakers 


i 


By 


* ~ bP Pale! 
= gts Mink we 
% 


"t 
Peveabrtg.y ty! 
%¢ 


eee 


= 


sir 
aes i 
anv (or I 9 





wee 


Resto 
eos 





Say 
Pane ee 
c; 


S15 
pokes s 
ee 














eth 
ie ne 





=e 5 


! aie a 
crt 
oe 


3) Ex 4 


ieoenks 


Maks oH ae 
PAstAb Fen Ep eae 
tribe Bh yee od 














ae Verso 1) 
ma ky a elik abe ie CS A 
mygetyet fel Cee St evn L 
Nt Yah eee ie Waar tei i Ps tt 
iat uh. ‘ 























o a 
i i 


ark 
Tie ie ety ke 
Apel ise: 





ey iv" 
ae aes 

[2 itebasal lockers ed 
42 Neo edeke 1 4 rant #4 # inte ThE mike 


Sik 
SE 


Pa 


3 
= 


oereants } raga 

ih wireend eh vg! y ekg } 
ph ane, 3 BSS b. AE ee 
dh TATIONS Bo: ie Le . : 


imake 





Ai 


one ‘ 
hi tony ist 
Ae it 








= 
aw 


tid be ae 
Hy 0) Ase: apie te hoaee 
a Bart Thies 
tit y ons ceeeer bats bum 
bbs Svea 





Cipeal aiedcted 
fy ar 
atime 


we 


2 
Pee = 

ca 
a 
ar 


ati 


en 


eee 


ints val ‘ti aR Pet hae 
: ates be PHg a te yh wn 
iit stn a thee 
peau hee Leap bya yd she 
i at ; vite af at 
owe Gav 


my